BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Bank of Ireland (UK) plc Bill

Bill considered.
	Bill to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Flood Protection (Warrington)

David Mowat: What steps her Department is considering taking to protect households in Warrington from flooding.

Richard Benyon: Before I start, may I welcome the new members of the Opposition Front-Bench team and the returning member, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)? That is a great pleasure and I look forward to working with them in future weeks; the hon. Gentleman is living proof that one can boil cabbage twice.
	The Environment Agency is working closely with partners to develop a scheme that will reduce the risk of flooding from the River Mersey to 2,000 properties in Warrington. Last year, DEFRA provided £200,000 to Warrington borough council, which it used to address local flood risk for 30 homes in Dallam and Orford. Flood risk from rivers in Warrington is also actively managed by water course maintenance, flood warning and development control.

David Mowat: I thank the Minister for that reply, and, as he says, the work that has taken and is taking place in Westy is much appreciated. In other parts of Warrington, around Penketh and Sankey, the previously planned work has been delayed. Will the Minister give some indication of the time scales for that work?

Richard Benyon: It is to my hon. Friend’s credit that he continuously raises these issues with the Environment Agency and the Department. The Sankey area is of great concern to a number of households. It does not rate as highly as the other much larger scheme in the
	Warrington area and it will be considered, as is the way, with complete transparency in the funding scheme that has been announced, which will be considered by the local flood authority in due course.

Andrew Love: rose—

Mr Speaker: On the subject of Warrington, not Edmonton.

Andrew Love: It is allied to Warrington.

Mr Speaker: Then we will test the water.

Andrew Love: If I may say so, Mr Speaker, the similarities are very great, because just like Warrington, we suffered—

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I was prepared to give him some latitude, but the question must be purely on Warrington rather than allied to Warrington. We are grateful to him for his industrious efforts.

Recycling Sector (Employment)

Alec Shelbrooke: What steps the Environment Agency is taking that will contribute to growth and employment in the recycling sector.

Caroline Spelman: I, too, want to add my welcome to the new members of the shadow DEFRA team. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) is remembered fondly by officials at DEFRA and I should send their regards.
	The UK’s waste and recycling sector is valued at more than £12 billion a year and is projected to grow between 3% and 5% a year for the next seven years, making a valuable contribution to the greening of our economy. The Environment Agency will implement part of the Government’s waste review to ensure that regulation is effective in protecting human health and the environment while making compliance as easy as possible for legitimate business.

Alec Shelbrooke: My right hon. Friend will be interested to learn of a potassic lime fertiliser produced by 4Recycling, a company on the periphery of my constituency of Elmet and Rothwell. The product is made from recycled material but the company is being hindered by the bureaucracy of the Environment Agency. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the issues that are restricting growth in this industry?

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend has been vigilant in writing to me about this product, produced by 4Recycling Ltd. I must set straight for the record that the product, potassic lime, is a mixture of water treatment work sludge and cement kiln dust. A current analysis of the product shows that it contains contaminated products, such as lead. The caution that the Environment Agency has exercised is therefore something that I am sure all Members of the House would understand, but I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it further.

Gavin Shuker: If the Environment Secretary had followed Scotland and Wales and adopted an ambitious 70% recycling target in her waste review, she could have created 50,000 new green jobs, yet she has been silent as the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government splurged £250 million on weekly bin collections, directly undermining her own waste strategy. Is saving her own job really more important than creating 50,000 in the real economy?

Caroline Spelman: First, we ought to record with gratitude the effort that the public make to help with recycling rates. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that it is not right to take a one-size-fits-all approach and that it is up to local authorities to decide the best collection service for their area. I fully support the scheme being introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government because it is conditional on environmental benefits as well as giving increased value for money for the taxpayer.

Training Opportunities (Rural Areas)

Therese Coffey: What steps she is taking to encourage young people to take up learning and vocational training opportunities in the countryside and farming sector.

Andrew Stephenson: What steps she is taking to encourage young people to take up learning and vocational training opportunities in the countryside and farming sector.

George Eustice: What steps she is taking to encourage young people to take up learning and vocational training opportunities in the countryside and farming sector.

Brandon Lewis: What steps she is taking to encourage young people to take up learning and vocational training opportunities in the countryside and farming sector.

Sajid Javid: What steps she is taking to encourage young people to take up learning and vocational training opportunities in the countryside and farming sector.

Caroline Spelman: I am delighted that so many colleagues are keen to ask about this important issue. Improving skills and creating learning opportunities is an essential part of delivering growth in farming, rural areas and food businesses. To that end, earlier in the summer, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, announced 50,000 new apprenticeships, mainly associated with agriculture and the food industry. In addition, we are working closely with colleagues at the Departments for Education and for Business, Innovation and Skills to make sure that rural areas benefit from the additional £250 million that the Government are investing in adult apprenticeships.

Therese Coffey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she encourage her Ministers to work with people such as those at the Suffolk Agricultural Association,
	who hold annual school days for children, to ensure that they are involved in encouraging the take-up of apprenticeships when people leave school?

Caroline Spelman: I have absolutely no hesitation in endorsing that scheme in Suffolk. Obviously, we would like to see that example of best practice replicated elsewhere.

Andrew Stephenson: With the rising price of lamb making upland sheep farming a promising and viable business now and for the future, what is the Minister going to do to ensure that more young people are attracted to remain in this sector of farming after generations of farmers’ sons and daughters have left it?

Caroline Spelman: I well remember, when we launched our upland support package, which brought £26 million of new money to help support farmers and their communities in the uplands, sheep farmers saying to me that this problem of succession is a serious one. So I was delighted to hear that Northumberland national park, in partnership with Lantra, is encouraging a programme with the local college in that national park for upland farming skills. A similar scheme called Dartmoor skills has also been introduced. I think that young people will increasingly be attracted to the tradition of sheep farming, which has a bright future.

George Eustice: Last year, the Welsh Assembly Government launched the young entrants support scheme—an innovative project that offers grant funding and business mentoring to new entrants and young farmers. Will the Secretary of State look at replicating something similar in the UK? We have a real problem in that around a third of farmers are over the age of 65. We must try to get some new people in.

Caroline Spelman: Yes, I think that that scheme has merit. As I announced earlier this month, we will have a rural strand as part of the growth review. I am sure that all Members want to see part of the economic recovery of our country vested in rural areas, which have often been neglected. A huge opportunity exists to help young people to enter land-based employment and to encourage rural enterprise.

Brandon Lewis: Does the Secretary of State agree that national park authorities such as the Broads Authority in my constituency do some great work with disadvantaged youngsters in their outreach programmes and that all national park authorities should prioritise that kind of outreach work?

Caroline Spelman: Yes, the Broads Authority sets a very good example in helping young people, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged young people, to gain access to the countryside. I am delighted to tell the House that the Health and Safety Executive has, at the request of the Government, simplified its guidance for farm visits, thereby removing one of the significant barriers to helping schoolchildren access the countryside. Through the rural development programme for England, we make it possible for 1,000 farms to be visited by our young people; access to nature for young people is a very important part of investing in their future.

Sajid Javid: I recently met a farmer in my constituency who told me that more than 80% of his 50 employees are hard-working eastern Europeans. He finds it very difficult to attract young British people to take on those jobs. Is there anything that the Secretary of State’s Department can do to make this work more attractive to them?

Caroline Spelman: I am sure that the same complaint has been made to other hon. Members. On Open Farm Sunday, I visited a farm in Worcestershire where exactly the same point was made to me. It is important to stress, for the record, that although manual work on the farm is hard work, it can be very well paid—up to £10 an hour on average—so that seems not to be the impediment. By working with the Department for Work and Pensions, we are very keen to make sure that work does pay for our young people.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will not a lot of young people be discouraged from going into agriculture by the Government’s plans to scrap the Agricultural Wages Board, as that will drive down wages and conditions, particularly for young people and casual workers? Should the Secretary of State not listen to her coalition friend the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I believe, has said that he is against the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board? Listening to him is something that she could do to help workers and young workers in particular.

Caroline Spelman: This is becoming something of an obsession for the Labour party, but Labour Members refuse to accept or acknowledge that, when in government, they were certainly considering scrapping the Agricultural Wages Board, and only the Warwick agreement and pressure from the unions—their paymasters—caused them to change their minds. Employment legislation has moved on tremendously since 1948, when the Agricultural Wages Board was set up. They are supporting an analogue solution in a digital age.

Andrew George: Notwithstanding the previous question, does my right hon. Friend not agree that potential new, young entrants will be looking closely at the common agricultural policy reform proposals published by the Commission yesterday? Although there are welcome proposals with regard to payments to young farmers, does she not agree that many of the other proposals would undermine the competitiveness of the future of British and, indeed, European agriculture?

Caroline Spelman: Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for that. The House will be aware that the Commission has just published its proposals to reform the CAP, and I am afraid that they are disappointing. We will do all we can to improve them. We need agriculture that is competitive, market oriented and successful, to attract new entrants, but at first sight—we need to do more analysis—the Commission’s proposals seem extremely bureaucratic and do not move us in the right direction.

Bats in Churches

Tony Baldry: What recent discussions she has had with (a) the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and (b) Natural England on the effects of bats on churches and other listed buildings.

Richard Benyon: The Secretary of State has met church building representatives to discuss the issues, and Natural England is working closely with them to find solutions to difficult cases. We have had no discussions with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the issue.

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend’s family have the patronage of the livings of a number of churches, so he will know more than most Members about the damage done by bat faeces and urine to church fabric. May I exhort him to encourage Natural England to do much more to work with English Heritage to try to ensure that, while bats continue to have their statutory protection, they do not have it at the cost of irreparable damage to our parish churches?

Richard Benyon: As someone who loves bats and is a reasonably regular churchgoer, I suppose that I am qualified to talk about this. There is a serious point: of course, we want to abide by the habitats directive and, in most cases, working with Natural England, we can resolve these issues locally, but it would be ridiculous if churches that have been used for worship for hundreds of years become unusable owing to a too-close following of the directive. There must be a common-sense way forward. I am happy to work with my hon. Friend in his capacity as the Second Church Estates Commissioner to ensure that we have sensible policies on the issue.

Anne McIntosh: At St Hilda’s church in a parish near Thornton-le-Dale parish, the bats are allowed to use the church but the congregation is not. Have we not reached a ridiculous state of affairs when bats have greater protection than the congregation?

Richard Benyon: I am aware of the issue at St Hilda’s. If that really is the case, we have reached an absolute impasse. We must consider finding an alternative means to provide a place where bats can roost and people can worship. That is one of the reasons why the Government have put all wildlife legislation in the Law Commission’s hands—to make absolutely certain that we are not gold-plating our interpretation of the directive. I assure my hon. Friend that I will work with her and any other Member if they find examples where we have hit the buffers and cannot find a way forward.

Common Fisheries Policy

Oliver Colvile: What recent discussions she has had on reform of the common fisheries policy.

Richard Benyon: As UK Fisheries Minister, I continue to have discussions about the reform of the common fisheries policy with a wide range of people and organisations, including the EU Commission, Members of the UK and European Parliaments and ministerial colleagues from other member states, as well as representatives of fishing and related industries. I will continue to press our case for reform, as the negotiations develop in the Council and European Parliament.

Oliver Colvile: May I urge my hon. Friend to press for UK fishing waters to come back under UK control, and to sort out the loopy idea that the Austrians might end up having a vote on the common fisheries policy even though they do not have a single piece of coastline?

Richard Benyon: I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. That debate will perhaps be had at a higher level than mine, but he should remember two things. First, we are dealing with an industry in crisis, so urgency is a real factor for those involved in the fishing industry, both in his constituency and everywhere else. Secondly, we would need a mechanism for dealing with other countries whether we were covered by the common fisheries policy or not, because fish do not respect borders. We would have to continue to deal with historical fishing rights, which go beyond our membership of the common fisheries policy. I take seriously my responsibility, given the door that has been opened by the Commission’s position on the subject, to push for real, genuine, radical reform that can improve the situation for fishermen and the marine environment.

Eilidh Whiteford: Alongside CFP reform, the ongoing mackerel dispute with Iceland and the Faroe islands continues to cause great concern, not just for pelagic fishermen but for the white fish fleet and fish processors. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of negotiations with Iceland and tell us, in the event of a deal, what recompense will be made available to Scottish fishermen? Might it possibly take the form of additional quota?

Richard Benyon: I cannot give the hon. Lady that precise information at the moment. I can tell her that there has been a slight improvement in the relationship with the Icelanders, and I hope that we can build on that. I am still pessimistic about our discussions with the Faroese, but I assure her that I will keep her closely involved, because we are talking about our most valuable fishery. It is sustainable, and we face a severe risk of losing marine stewardship accreditation for the stock, which would cause great harm to her constituents and our economy.

Sheryll Murray: For the first time, I do not have to declare an interest in the subject.
	Will the Minister update the House on any representations that he has made during the ongoing negotiations to enable the United Kingdom to introduce a higher standard of fisheries management for all fishing vessels fishing within our 12-mile limit, and say whether any member states have pledged support for that?

Richard Benyon: I continue to work with other member states to get across our view that where we are creating marine conservation zones outside the 6-mile limit, we should not be controlling the activities of our fishermen while allowing fishermen from other countries to continue to operate as they did. There has to be a level playing field. On fisheries safety and the development of control orders, which came in under the previous Government, this is the opportunity to make sure that fishermen from other countries behave as we require our fishermen to behave. It is really important that we follow through with that. We have allies in Europe, and I am determined to make sure that an even-handed approach is taken.

Agricultural Science

George Freeman: What recent assessment she has made of the role agricultural science can play in promoting growth.

Caroline Spelman: New science and innovation is essential to enhancing the competitiveness and resilience of the UK and wider EU agricultural sectors. As the House will know, Lord Taylor of Holbeach recently joined the ministerial team of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Lord Taylor is, of course, the architect of the Taylor review, which explored the role of science in agriculture, and which the Government are taking forward.

George Freeman: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and congratulate her Department on everything that it is doing to drive a sustainable recovery and unlock growth in our agricultural sector. I am sure that she, like me, will have seen the news last week from the world-class John Innes Centre and the Institute of Food Research about the launch of the new glucoraphanin-enhanced broccoli with the potential to reduce heart disease and some cancers. Does she agree that our often overlooked agricultural research base has huge potential to unlock new markets around the world, and will she meet representatives of the sector and me to see what more we can do to help?

Caroline Spelman: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. Not only did I read about the new variety of broccoli, but my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science actively referred to the benefits that it can bring. It is a very good example of the benefits of investing in research on agriculture and agri-food. The Government spend £400 million on agri-food research and development, and DEFRA spends £65 million per annum on agri-food R and D, including on animal health and welfare.

Roger Williams: The proposals announced yesterday for the reform of the agricultural policy include sums of money for promoting agricultural science. Will the Secretary of State please ensure that that is carried forward into the final proposals, and that Britain has its fair share of that money?

Caroline Spelman: I have no hesitation at all in agreeing with that and welcoming that part of the CAP reform proposals. It is very important that European agriculture is innovative and that the industry becomes more competitive and market orientated. That must be done with the support of research and development in agriculture. That is an element of the proposals that we warmly welcome.

Badgers

Graeme Morrice: What representations she has received from the scientific community on her plans to pilot the free shooting of badgers.

James Paice: We have received a large number of representations, including from members of the scientific community. DEFRA’s
	chief scientific adviser, Professor Bob Watson, has also discussed the evidence with a group of leading scientists, who were able to agree on a number of key points. Their conclusions have been published on DEFRA’s website.

Graeme Morrice: I thank the Minister for his answer, but why is he blindly following the free shooting option and excluding others, such as vaccination, regardless of the scientific advice, and why did he cancel five of the six vaccination trials entered into by the previous Labour Government?

James Paice: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. We are not blindly ignoring vaccination, which we have always said has a role to play. Indeed, it is being carried out at the moment in some parts of the country. The simple fact, as we have published, is that our veterinary advice states that we can have a greater and swifter impact on bovine TB through a culling policy than through vaccination. With regard to what he called the trials that I cancelled, they were not trials of the vaccine, but deployment projects, and we decided that we could achieve all that we needed in one project, rather than wasting another £6 million on the others.

James Gray: Farmers across North Wiltshire are being ruined by TB in cattle and very much welcome the recent announcement that the Government will press ahead with a limited cull. Does the Minister agree that selected tests so far have shown a 27% reduction in bovine TB and that, although there was perturbation, as they call it, around the edge of the trial area, it is shown to have been reduced in subsequent years?

James Paice: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. The results of the Krebs trials, which were conducted by the independent scientific group on cattle TB, demonstrated that after nine years—long after the end of the trials themselves—there was a reduction of 27%, and even 29%, in the cull zone, which was slightly offset by a temporary increase in the peripheral area. What matters, however, are the measures that are taken to reduce that increase, which is why we are now saying that any group or farmer must now put forward their own ideas about how they will minimise this perturbation.

Mary Creagh: In a parliamentary answer to me on 5 September, the Minister said that the science showed that his badger cull would lead to five fewer herd breakdowns a year in each cull area. Last year there were more than 2,025 confirmed herd breakdowns in England, so even with 10 cull areas after 2013 the cull would prevent just 50 herd breakdowns a year, a reduction of only 2.5%. However, the cost to farmers in cull areas will run to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds. Why should they bother?

James Paice: I suggest that the hon. Lady asks the farmers. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) has just said, the farming community is anxious to do something after 13 years of neglect under the Labour party. Of course it will be expensive for the groups of farmers involved, but that is up to them. This is one part of a large package of measures, all the rest of which the Government are doing.

Mary Creagh: The Minister says “do something”, but surely doing something effective is more useful. We know that the Home Secretary has objected to the cull and is concerned that it will divert scarce police resources away from policing the Olympic games next summer. The latest impact assessment, the consultation for which has just closed, put no figure on the costs, although last year’s consultation put the costs at £200,000. Have those costs risen or fallen since then and will he undertake to make them public so that taxpayers can see how much they are contributing to the cull before a final decision is taken on whether to proceed?

James Paice: I am glad the hon. Lady recognises that no final decision has been made, a point that I need to emphasise. The fact is that the proposals that we laid before the House, and the consultation that has just finished, were agreed by the whole Government. On the policing costs we are in discussions, and have been for some months, with the Association of Chief Police Officers. Its attention was unfortunately but quite understandably diverted by the disturbances and riots, so it has only recently refocused, but I assure the hon. Lady that all that information will be used and involved in the final decision, when we bring it to the House.

Tessa Munt: Living as I do in the west country, I know that the Minister will be aware of our concerns not only about bovine TB, but about several other things. I gather that the Secretary of State has put together a proposal to close the vet labs in various places throughout the country, and I wondered what the rationale was for that, particularly in an area where bovine TB is such a problem.

James Paice: I am grateful that my hon. Friend allows me to correct her impression slightly. The decision, which will be made quite rightly by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, results from the merger of two agencies into one. All that is being closed is the actual laboratories that undertake scientific testing. The post-mortem centres are not proposed for closure, and most samples are already sent by post anyway, so it does not represent in any way a diminution of service.

Dangerous Dogs

Julie Hilling: What plans she has to bring forward proposals to deal with antisocial behaviour by dogs and their owners.

James Paice: As the House is aware, the Home Office has already consulted on changes to the tools and powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, including antisocial behaviour involving dogs, and is considering the responses. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is also considering a range of further measures to promote more responsible ownership of dogs and will make an announcement shortly.

Julie Hilling: When my constituent Pat Brennan was savaged by a bull mastiff, he was told that there was nothing he could do because the attack took place on private property. How many more people have to die or be maimed for life before the Government act?

James Paice: I am tempted to point out the lack of action by the previous Government, but the much bigger issue is that, as the consultations have demonstrated, some results of which have been published, there is a massive variety of ideas on the best way forward. On the specific issue of private property, that is one thing we consulted on and one thing being considered, but the problem is how we differentiate between an assault on a postman or somebody who is lawfully present and an assault on somebody who may be trespassing or a criminal.

David Nuttall: May I urge the Minister, when he discusses the issue with colleagues throughout the Government, to impress upon them the need to ensure that anyone who encourages their dog to attack a guide dog used by a blind or partially sighted person is very severely punished, indeed?

James Paice: Obviously, punishment is precisely a matter for the courts, but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiment, and the Home Office has fully taken that point on board.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am glad to be back, as proof that this Opposition are serious about recycling.
	Far too many people, including children, are being needlessly killed or maimed by dangerous dogs, and the numbers are rising every single year. Twenty organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Kennel Club, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Royal College of Nursing and the Police Federation, are calling for a change in the law. The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have already acted, so, 16 months after the end of the consultation and when the Minister said in July that the Government ruled nothing out, will he now rule something in and bring forward his proposals before Christmas at the very latest?

James Paice: There speaks the authentic voice of 13 years of inaction—and the hon. Gentleman now criticises us about 16 months. We have shadowed each other, and I respect his integrity and admire him, but he is really stretching credibility. I assure him that, as soon as the Home Office has finished considering its consultation, which finished only recently, we will come together to the House with our proposals as soon as possible.

Wild Animals in Circuses

Julian Huppert: What recent progress she has made in banning the use of wild animals in circuses.

James Paice: The Government fully understand the House’s desire for a ban and are continuing to look at how the legal obstacles may be overcome so that one can be achieved. In the meantime, we are developing a tough licensing regime that will stop circuses using animals if they do not provide appropriate welfare standards. We will consult on these early next year, and I hope that they will be in place by July of next year.

Julian Huppert: As the Minister will no doubt recall, on 23 June there was a simply stunning cross-party debate on this issue which concluded unanimously with this House directing the Government to make sure that these regulations took effect by 1 July 2012. Can he assure us that he will make sure that the Government do deliver on this, absolutely definitely?

James Paice: As I have just said, despite the clear view of the House, which the Government share, we cannot ignore our international legal responsibilities—that is why we are still continuing with our regulatory proposals—but we want to be able to implement the ban as soon as we can when the legal obstacles are cleared up. Since the debate to which my hon. Friend rightly refers, a lot more legal advice has come to us, either having been sought or offered, and it all confirms that which I reported at that stage.

Topical Questions

Linda Riordan: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Caroline Spelman: My Department takes responsibility for safeguarding the environment, supporting farmers, and strengthening the green economy. In line with that, I have just returned from the Rio+20 preparations in Delhi, where good progress was made in identifying areas of common ground on sustainable agriculture and energy, resource efficiency and inclusive growth for what I hope will prove to be a successful summit next year.
	I have referred to the CAP reform proposals published yesterday. We are currently scrutinising the full document for its impact on all parts of the United Kingdom, and it will of course come before the European Committees in due course.

Linda Riordan: The Forestry Commission’s current consultation proposes to reduce educational visits to public forests in England from 43,000 per year to just 15,000 per year. Will the Minister commit to consult teachers, parents and Forestry Commission staff over this shocking attack on children’s outdoor education?

Caroline Spelman: Obviously, the Forestry Commission is responsible for taking decisions in relation to its own budget, but this is a consultation and I will certainly look into the matter. In response to an earlier question, I said how important it is that young people are able to engage with nature, including with our woodlands and forests. Through the Rural Development Programme for England, we make it possible for young people to do that, and we would actively encourage the Forestry Commission to consider this as well.

Caroline Dinenage: The Minister will be aware that the Fishery Protection Squadron is the oldest squadron in the Royal Navy. Does DEFRA see an enduring role for fishery protection within the Royal Navy once the current arrangements finish in 2013?

Richard Benyon: I much enjoyed a visit to HMS Mersey and boarding a trawler from another country, and I was impressed by the squadron’s professionalism and approach to the whole job. It is at an advanced stage in negotiations with the Marine Management Organisation on the continuance of this contract. I very much hope that that can be achieved, because I share my hon. Friend’s view that it is a very professionally run operation that is doing great service not only to our fishing industry and the maintenance of our waters but to our national security.

Jonathan Edwards: The Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency has announced proposals to close eight of its labs, including both Welsh sites at Aberystwyth and Ceredigion. I am informed that closure of the Welsh sites will result in a 24-hour delay in diagnosing livestock diseases—an unacceptable period that could leave the communities I represent terribly exposed. Does the Minister agree that it is a disgrace that this decision was made without any consultation with the Welsh Government or the farming and workers trade unions?

James Paice: As I mentioned earlier, this was a decision by the agency, but I understand that it was discussed with the equivalent agency and the chief vet in Wales. No sites are being closed. As I said, this is purely about the laboratory aspect, not the post-mortem aspect. I agree that 24 hours extra delay may be unacceptable, but that is not what is expected; we expect timeliness to remain as it is.

Tony Baldry: Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm when she expects to receive the final report of the Independent Panel on Forestry?

Caroline Spelman: I am pleased to say that the chairman of the panel, the Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, has recovered well from his operation and is back at work. That has not in any way affected the timetable for the publication of the final report, which will still happen next spring. When speaking to Bishop James Jones last week, he assured me that the interim report will be received by the Department in November.

Jessica Morden: The Labour-led Welsh Assembly Government this month made Wales the first part of the UK to introduce a carrier bag charge. That was done not to raise money but to encourage reuse and avoid waste. Is the Secretary of State willing to take the lead from Wales, in view of the Department’s recent back-tracking on recycling?

Caroline Spelman: I do not accept the accusation of back-tracking. My Department has the first waste review policy for 20 years. We are certainly looking at the Welsh proposal and we should consider everything that might deal with elements of litter that are part of our waste prevention strategy. At a European level, the European Commission is looking at the Italian Government’s proposal to ban plastic bags. That has to be considered in a single market context.

Stephen Mosley: The Shropshire Union canal runs through the heart of Chester and is much-loved by canal users, fishermen and local residents. How can local people and canal users get involved in the new north Wales and borders waterways partnership to help support the future of our local canals and inland waterways?

Richard Benyon: The good news that the launch of the canal and river trust is on schedule will be welcome to my hon. Friend’s constituents and all who know and love their canals. There is a plethora of ways in which they can get involved. They can take part in their local partnership, which, following our consultation, will have a much more local focus. I look forward to working with him and other hon. Members to ensure that the new charity is a great success.

Lisa Nandy: Farmers and food suppliers in Wigan are desperate for the protection of a groceries ombudsman from the unfair practices of supermarkets. The Government recently promised a Bill to implement that proposal very soon. Will the Secretary of State put pressure on her colleagues to ensure that “soon” really will be soon?

James Paice: The short answer is yes. As the hon. Lady knows, a draft Bill has been published and has been considered by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. The Committee’s report has gone to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills recently. It is that Department’s Bill, but we are pressing hard for it to be passed as soon as possible.

Mary Macleod: I welcome the Government’s negotiations in Europe on food labelling, but I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that we maintain the flexibility to keep the things that Britain holds dear, such as buying eggs by the dozen and beer by the pint.

James Paice: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s words. This is a policy commitment that the Government have delivered on very clearly. We promised honest labelling and we now have a voluntary code in this country and mandatory country of origin labelling across a lot of products in Europe. I entirely agree with her point about quantities; Britain has its traditions and we want to stick to them.

Alex Cunningham: Food prices have risen by 6% in the last year, costing a family with two young children an extra £350 a year. When will the Secretary of State do something positive to tackle speculation in food prices and its impact on families?

Caroline Spelman: The underlying cause of rising food prices is, of course, rising global prices of food commodities. The market fundamentals are the driver of that. Supply and demand is tight. We have to feed a hungry world, which will possibly have 9 billion people by 2050, as the Government’s own Foresight report says. That is why this Government and my Department have set a priority of producing more food sustainably.

Duncan Hames: I welcome the Minister’s announcement about the canal and river trust. What plans does he have to ensure that its decision-making is transparent and accountable? Indeed, will he consider applying to it the Freedom of Information Act?

Richard Benyon: I am grateful for the opportunity to point out that all the provisions that currently exist for British Waterways in that regard will follow through to the new charity. If the new charity is to have the credibility that it must have, it is important that we assure all those who really mind about this matter that we are protecting those rights.

Angela Smith: On 6 July, in a Westminster Hall debate on dangerous dogs, the Minister said in his response that there was
	“real evidence that the situation is worsening”
	and that:
	“Action must, therefore, be taken.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2011; Vol. 530, c. 485WH.]
	Given that admission, is it not morally reprehensible that even today he refuses to give a date for a response to the consultation started by the previous Government?

James Paice: As I said earlier, the Government are fully committed on the matter, and I do not resile from anything that I said in that debate. However, as I have just mentioned, the Home Office rightly decided to examine the wider issues. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are bleating from the Opposition Front Bench, but they know as well as I do that much of the problem is the people, not the dogs. That is why it is right that the Home Office should be involved, but we will bring forward our proposals as soon as we possibly can.

Martin Vickers: I am frequently advised by potential investors in my constituency that they lack confidence in the planning process due to delays caused by Natural England. Can the Secretary of State assure me that she will look into that and ensure that Natural England is mindful of the commercial pressures on investors?

Caroline Spelman: Natural England is a statutory consultee in the planning process, but I certainly give my hon. Friend an undertaking that I will look into the case in question. There is, of course, a balancing act, and Natural England is responsible for ensuring that directives that the previous Government and their predecessors signed up to are complied with correctly, but I will look into that specific case with urgency.

Ian Paisley Jnr: In light of the meeting that is to take place on 25 October between the Secretary of State and the Ministers from the devolved Assemblies across the United Kingdom, will she set out what the agenda for that meeting is going to be? Will she assure us that CAP reform will be on the agenda, and that she will listen carefully to the needs of representatives of the rural regions across the UK and of the 40,000 farmers in Northern Ireland who rely on the CAP as it currently stands?

Caroline Spelman: I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We are due to meet devolved Administration Ministers on 25 October, and agricultural reform is on the agenda.
	I expect that they will attend the Agriculture Council meeting next week, as I have encouraged them to, and we will work very closely with them. I hope the hon. Gentleman noticed that when I referred to how the Government were looking at CAP reform, I said that we would examine its impact on all parts of the United Kingdom.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Local Infrastructure Investment

Julian Smith: What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the potential opportunities for the Church of England to work with other parts of the community to attract public funds for local infrastructure investment.

Tony Baldry: The Church of England and the Church Commissioners will always take every opportunity to work with local partners for the benefit of local communities.

Julian Smith: Ripon cathedral plays a really important role in our local community, bringing together community groups and developing the economy of Ripon as a whole. Will my hon. Friend pass on the positive feedback about the cathedral’s role, which could be an example for other cathedral towns across England?

Tony Baldry: Absolutely, I would of course be very happy to do that. Ripon cathedral is the oldest English cathedral—its crypt dates back to 672—and for centuries it has been at the heart of Ripon. I hope that every possible local organisation will work with the dean and chapter to help enhance the vitality of Ripon. The Church Commissioners will certainly engage positively in whatever way we can to support that.

Metal Theft (Churches)

David Nuttall: What recent discussions the Church Commissioners have had with the Home Office on reform of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 for the purposes of reducing the incidence of theft of metal from churches.

Barry Sheerman: What resources the Church Commissioners plan to make available to churches that have been subject to theft or vandalism.

Tony Baldry: I shall place in the Library a copy of the Church Buildings Council’s report on metal theft, which concludes that the 1964 Act is no longer fit for purpose.

David Nuttall: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the theft of metal from churches is costing them an estimated £1 million a month. Has he yet had any indication
	whether the recommendation made in the Church Buildings Council’s working party report of March this year—that cash payments by scrap yards for metals such as lead should be prohibited—will be accepted?

Tony Baldry: We are working very closely with Ministers to achieve that, and we have a meeting in the very near future with the noble Lord Henley to try to take it forward. I think that there is general agreement among everyone who has examined the matter that we need to take cash out of the transactions. It is too easy at present for people to strip churches of lead at night, go to a scrap yard the next day, get cash and walk away. The people who are suffering from that are in the most vulnerable communities in our society.

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman will know of St John’s in Birkby, which had its steeple pulled down by people stripping the lead from the roof, and of the immense cost that the parish incurred. I certainly agree that we need to amend the scrap metal legislation, but we also need to consider the level of compensation and insurance premiums.

Tony Baldry: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The thieves, in that case, simply wanted the lightning conductor, but in trying to get it they almost destroyed the whole church, because they pulled the steeple down into the church. One of the penalties for churches that have their lead stripped is that the insurers thereafter will refuse to insure them, so all the burden falls on local communities and parishes. This is an epidemic that we need to grasp and solve. It simply cannot continue.

Kate Green: In my constituency, St Brides church in Old Trafford suffered the theft of its church bell. One of the reasons we are particularly vulnerable to such offences is the presence of a large scrap metal yard in the constituency. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in putting pressure on the Home Office not just to amend the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, but to ensure that the police are adequately resourced to deal with these increasing levels of crime?

Tony Baldry: I am glad to say to the hon. Lady that I think that police forces up and down the country are now taking this issue seriously, not just because of the theft of lead from churches, but because of the theft of copper from railway signalling devices. The theft of metals has now gone significantly up the agenda of police forces across the country.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission ,  was asked—

United Kingdom Elections

Sajid Javid: What recent recommendations the Electoral Commission has made to the Government on the running of UK-wide elections.

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission has made a number of recommendations to the Government on the administration of UK-wide elections, most recently in its report on the 2010 parliamentary general election. The commission has recommended that the Government set out a comprehensive plan to improve the management of elections and to make it easier for voters to participate.

Sajid Javid: Although the result of the recent alternative vote referendum was probably predictable from the beginning, it was nevertheless a very well-run process. Are there any lessons that we can learn from that for future UK-wide elections?

Gary Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is being very perceptive, because there has been widespread public appreciation of how the UK referendum was run earlier in the year. The commission will be publishing a report next Wednesday that will make a number of recommendations for improving the delivery of all future UK-wide elections and will, in particular, emphasise the benefits of central co-ordination.

Mark Lazarowicz: What consideration has the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission given to ensuring the integrity of the UK-wide franchise? We are hearing of proposals from the Scottish Government to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for their proposed referendum on Scotland separating from the UK.

Gary Streeter: The commission takes all such issues very seriously, and although I do not have a lot of knowledge of that particular issue, no doubt the commission is considering it. If I can respond to the hon. Gentleman in writing, I shall certainly do so.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Bats

Anne McIntosh: What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the effects of bats on churches; and if he will make a statement.

Tony Baldry: I am sure that many in the House will be concerned about the damage done by bats in church buildings. Although all species of bats have statutory protection, considerable damage has been caused to church fabric by bat droppings and bat urine.

Anne McIntosh: My hon. Friend is familiar with, and has taken up, the case of St Hilda’s church, but it is unacceptable that the congregation is not allowed to pray and worship in the church because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Natural England are taking a leisurely pace to exclude the bats from the church. The bats would not be excluded completely, but would have a different access point. May I ask him
	to use his good offices to speed this procedure along so that the congregation can worship normally in St Hilda’s church?

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend and the whole House will have heard the comments at the Dispatch Box earlier from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). I think that the House will recognise that he acknowledged that there is a problem here that needs to be addressed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, will work with the church authorities, Natural England and all of us in trying to strike a much better balance and in making appropriate representations to the Law Commission to ensure that we do not gold-plate the habitats directive in a way that prejudices people against bats.

Archbishop of Canterbury’s Visit to Africa

Richard Graham: What reports he has received on the outcome of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent visit to Africa.

Tony Baldry: The Archbishop of Canterbury, as spiritual leader to the worldwide Anglican community, was invited to make a pastoral visit to Malawi, Zimbabwe and Zambia by the Archbishop of Central Africa, the right reverend Albert Chama. The purpose of the visit was primarily to meet with bishops, clergy and parishioners to celebrate the life and ministry of the Anglican Church in the region and to strengthen ties with the Anglican communion. In the course of his visit the Archbishop of Canterbury met the Presidents of Malawi, Zimbabwe—Robert Mugabe—and Zambia, and the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Morgan Tsvangirai.

Richard Graham: I am grateful for that response. Several of my constituents in Gloucester have told me that they thought that the archbishop’s visit showed real moral courage. How much confidence does my hon. Friend have in Zimbabwe Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s pledge to ensure that the rule of law is applied and to allow Christians to worship in peace?

Tony Baldry: I would hope that the whole House would share that view about the courage of the Archbishop of Canterbury. By his preaching and presence in Africa he will have given immense encouragement to the persecuted Church there. The Archbishop of Canterbury in Africa has made a direct challenge to tyranny and given words of hope for the oppressed. The archbishop made it clear to President Mugabe that he should use his powers as Head of State to guarantee the security of Zimbabweans who worship with the Anglican Church and put an end to illegal and unacceptable behaviour—beatings and other degradation—that has been visited upon people simply because they are Christians.

David Winnick: On one of the very few occasions when I can agree with Conservative Members, let me say that many of us are deeply impressed by the way the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke the truth to Mugabe and urged him to stop the violence and
	thuggery that has unfortunately occurred over the past few years. The Archbishop of Canterbury has undoubtedly given a tremendous lead to decency.

Tony Baldry: This is one of the few occasions when I have agreed with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the whole House would do so too.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission ,  was asked—

Police Commissioner Elections

Hugh Bayley: What estimate the Electoral Commission has made of the cost of holding elections for police commissioners.

Gary Streeter: The Government included an estimate of the cost of holding elections for police and crime commissioners in May 2012 in their original impact assessment. When the Government proposed to move the date of the elections to November 2012, the commission advised Parliament that additional costs would arise from holding a stand-alone election and that it would be important to ensure adequate resources were in place. The commission has made no separate estimate of the cost of holding those elections.

Hugh Bayley: In North Yorkshire—just to give an example from one county—the Government have cut funding for the police from £54 million to £47 million in just two years. Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Electoral Commission to do all it can to reduce the cost of the elections and urge the Government to vire the money saved back into front-line policing?

Gary Streeter: I think the hon. Gentleman is raging against the policy rather than the Electoral Commission’s role in it. The costs are those incurred by the Government and local authorities, not the Electoral Commission, but I am sure that his plea for the cost of the elections to be minimised will be heard in the appropriate quarters.

Local Referendums

Robert Halfon: What recent discussions the Electoral Commission has had on giving communities the power to hold local referendums; and if he will make a statement.

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission has had no recent discussions on giving communities the power to hold local referendums. It has, however, set out its views on the proposals contained in the Localism Bill in briefings to Parliament. The commission’s priorities are that any referendum should be consistently well run and that the question put to voters should be intelligible and unbiased.

Robert Halfon: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. In Harlow a planning application for a waste transfer site has been pushed through by Essex council against
	the will of local residents, the Tany’s Dell primary school and Harlow council. How soon will the powers for local referendums be put in place, so that Harlow people can have their say?

Gary Streeter: As ever, my hon. Friend is a doughty champion for the people of Harlow, but he will know that the local referendum provisions are contained in the Localism Bill, which is currently going through the House of Lords. Once the Bill has received Royal Assent, the Government will then need to produce detailed rules for local referendums, which the Electoral Commission will study very carefully indeed, so I am afraid that his constituents may have to wait a little while longer.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Coptic Christians (Egypt)

Fiona Bruce: What support the Church Commissioners are providing to Coptic Christians in Egypt.

Tony Baldry: Church of England mission agencies, as well as the diocese linked with the region, continue to provide much needed pastoral support to Egypt’s beleaguered Christian minority. Bishop Mouneer, the Anglican Bishop of Egypt, North Africa and the Horn of Africa, is
	based in Cairo and is in regular contact with the leadership of the Egyptian Coptic Church.

Fiona Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, if the new regime in Egypt is to be taken seriously, it must ensure that the murder, victimisation and torture of Christians there ceases?

Tony Baldry: I entirely agree with that, and I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made exactly that point to the Egyptian authorities this week. He has told them that they cannot be taken seriously unless they afford proper protection to the Christian minority in Egypt, which, after all, forms something like 20% of the population of that country.

Mr Speaker: There is just time for Mr Simon Hughes. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

Simon Hughes: I am grateful, Mr Speaker. There is always just time.
	Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Church Commissioners to work with the Government to ensure that the issue of Christian minorities not only in Egypt but in other countries such as China where they are being heavily persecuted will be taken up internationally and by the United Kingdom Government?

Tony Baldry: I entirely agree with that. In fairness to the Foreign Secretary, he has been a doughty champion of the need to protect persecuted Christians throughout the world, whether in Pakistan, China or Egypt. It is very important that religious freedom should involve freedom for everyone, irrespective of their religion and of where they wish to practise their religion.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

George Young: The business for the week commencing 17 October will be:
	Monday 17 October—Motion relating to MPs’ pensions, followed by motion relating to disclosure and publication of documents relating to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Tuesday 18 October—Remaining stages of the Pensions Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 19 October—Opposition day (un-allotted day). There will be a debate on energy prices followed by a debate on individual voter registration. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Armed Forces Bill.
	Thursday 20 October—General debate on national planning policy framework.
	Friday 21 October—Private Members’ Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 24 October will include:
	Monday 24 October—Remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (day 1).
	Tuesday 25 October—Continuation of remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (day 2).
	Wednesday 26 October—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (day 3).
	Thursday 27 October—Business nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	For the convenience of the House, I wish to announce the proposed calendar for the coming year. We intend for the House to rise at the close of play on Tuesday 15 November, returning on Monday 21 November, meaning that we will not sit on two days—Wednesday 16 November and Thursday 17 November—as previously planned. The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the close of play on Tuesday 20 December, returning on Tuesday 10 January 2012.
	The House will rise for the constituency break at the close of play on Thursday 9 February, returning on Monday 20 February. We will rise for the Easter break at the close of play on Tuesday 27 March, returning on Monday 16 April. We will rise for the Whitsun recess at the close of play on Thursday 24 May, returning on Monday 11 June. The summer recess will start at the close of play on Tuesday 17 July, returning on Monday 3 September. Finally, we will rise for the conference recess at the close of play on Tuesday 18 September, returning on Monday 15 October. All those dates will be put before the House for approval, and the dates for the Queen’s Speech and private Members’ Bill Fridays for the second Session will be announced in the usual way. All dates are subject to the progress of business, and a calendar is now available from the Vote Office.

Angela Eagle: May I thank the Leader of the House for his statement, especially for his giving us early notice of the annual calendar? Even if it changes slightly, it is an innovation that I think all Members of all parties will appreciate. May I also take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) as my deputy, and to pay tribute to the work done by my immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who even as we speak is wrestling with the intricacies of the local government grant formula in his new shadow Cabinet role? I look forward to shadowing the Leader of the House. I note that he first came to the House in 1974, when I had only just arrived in big school. I hope that I can achieve a triumph of youth over experience on at least a few of these occasions.
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister promised to look at publishing a full list of all the meetings of Ministers and officials with the Defence Secretary’s self-styled adviser Adam Werritty. With further irregularities surfacing by the day, when will this list be published? Following the BBC’s revelations on secretive wealthy donors running a shadow operation at the heart of one of Whitehall’s most sensitive Government Departments, what are the implications for accountability and probity?
	With unemployment hitting a 17-year high, youth unemployment at nearly 1 million and the highest levels of joblessness among women for more than 20 years, is it not time that the Government admitted that their economic plan is just not working? Even the Conservative Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee recently described the Government’s action on growth as “piecemeal, contradictory and incoherent”, so it was no surprise to see him being strong-armed round the corner for re-education by the Prime Minister’s spin doctors at the Tory party conference.
	Is not the utterly inadequate response from the Government in yesterday’s debate on growth and jobs the clearest proof yet that they are in denial about the plight of millions of people now languishing on the dole? Will the Leader of the House therefore consider bringing forward the autumn statement so that we can take urgent action to implement Labour’s five-point plan on growth and jobs and begin to deal with the soaring unemployment and the waste of potential that it represents.
	Speaking of potential, I notice that the Prime Minister yesterday hosted a reception of FTSE 100 companies, exhorting them to promote more women into their boardrooms. With only four women in the entire Cabinet, is this not a case of the Prime Minister telling people to “do as I say, not as I do”? Perhaps if the Prime Minister had more women in his Cabinet he would be spared further embarrassment from some of the men he has in it. And while we are talking about the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, given our debate later today on electronic devices and tweeting from the Chamber, will the Government provide him with urgent training on how best to keep his fingerprints off the increasingly frequent briefings against his Cabinet colleagues?

George Young: May I begin by warmly welcoming the new shadow Leader of the House to her post? She has been a Member since 1992 and has held a number of ministerial and shadow ministerial posts as well as serving on Select Committees as a Back Bencher. She is
	well placed to take on her new responsibilities and help us in our efforts to strengthen the House. I look forward to working with her and her deputy, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), whom we also welcome, but the latter may have to clarify her role. I see from her website that she says:
	“Along with the Shadow Speaker of the House, I intend to make sure this government is held to account for its actions right in the heart of Parliament.”
	I am not sure whether you, Mr Speaker, will welcome this development and this new position.
	Along with the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), I pay tribute to the previous shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who had a deep understanding of, and affection for, the House. He will be much missed, as his bravura performances at the Dispatch Box every week were enjoyed on both sides of the House. Indeed, I believe he had to be moved because he risked overshadowing his leader on the Wednesdays. He now shadows my right hon. Friend the Communities and Local Government Secretary, and he may find that shadow a rather different profile from mine!
	I welcomed what the hon. Lady said about the early announcement of the parliamentary calendar. I think that that is in the interests of the House and all who work here. In 2010 we were given the Easter recess dates two weeks before the Easter recess.
	I am sure that the Prime Minister will honour the undertaking that he gave the House yesterday on the list of visits to Ministers as soon as the information has been dealt with. As for the other issue that the hon. Lady raised, the Cabinet Secretary is, as she knows, dealing with all outstanding issues and unanswered questions, and will complete his inquiry as soon as he can.
	Yesterday’s unemployment figures were grim. We debated the issue at some length yesterday in Opposition time, and the Prime Minister made clear that every job loss was a personal tragedy. We need to do all that we can to get people back to work. Youth unemployment, sadly, has been rising every year since 2004 and, given that it was rising during a period of growth, it will obviously be difficult to get it down during a period of challenging world recession. I will not repeat what the Chancellor said about 360,000 new apprenticeships, new sector-based work academies and the rest. We have had an Opposition day, and we are always ready to arrange another.
	As for being in denial, I think that the Opposition are still in denial on the deficit. During the Opposition day debate, the shadow Chancellor could not bring himself to discuss the central Opposition policy that was announced in the Labour leader’s conference speech. Perhaps that is proof that when it comes to constructive policies on the economy, the Government are the producers and the Opposition are the predators.
	I will pass on the hon. Lady’s comments about the need for more women in the Cabinet to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. As usual, a great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I remind the House that there is a statement by the
	Foreign Secretary to follow, as well as a series of heavily subscribed debates to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. As a consequence, we need—from Back and Front Benches alike—brevity.

Claire Perry: The whole House is waiting with bated breath to hear details of a written statement later today on improved transitional arrangements relating to changes in the women’s state pension age. Government Members have fought very hard for that. Will the Leader of the House please give us some details of what he is expecting?

George Young: My hon. Friend and neighbour might have seen the written ministerial statement that has just been published in the name of the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), in which he says that he will
	“today table Government amendments to the Pensions Bill”,
	which we shall discuss on Tuesday,
	“including one that caps the maximum increase in women’s State Pension age at 18 months, relative to the legislated timetable.”
	I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will welcome that announcement.

Dave Watts: May we have a debate on whether the funding of a charity or an individual to further the political interest of a Minister constitutes a donation in kind?

George Young: That sounds like one of the issues to which I referred in my response to the hon. Member for Wallasey, and which may arise from the ongoing inquiry by the Cabinet Secretary. I honestly think that it makes sense to await the outcome of the inquiry, and in the meantime to allow the Secretary of State for Defence to get on with his job.

Mark Pawsey: There is real concern about carbon taxation policy among industries that are large users of energy, such as CEMEX, which manufactures cement and is also a large employer in my constituency. May we have a debate on the matter, and on the need to ensure that UK industry remains competitive?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. He will know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said from this Dispatch Box that he is anxious to engage in dialogues with intensive users of energy who might be adversely affected by the changes, and who might be put at a competitive disadvantage in relation to other producers in Europe. I am sure that those dialogues are continuing, but I will bring my hon. Friend’s concern to the Chancellor’s attention.

Paul Flynn: May we have a debate to congratulate the Prime Minister on his wisdom in forecasting, just before the election, that the next major scandal affecting the House would involve lobbying? Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has done nothing about introducing his promised register.
	Is this matter not quite separate from the inquiry into the Defence Secretary? Appalling accusations have been made that major lobbyists representing extreme views paid an individual who was not registered as a lobbyist,
	did not register any interests and did not undergo any security checks, but nevertheless gained access to the top discussions in this country and abroad. That dreadful situation requires an urgent debate and legislation.

George Young: The previous Government totally ignored the Public Administration Committee’s recommendation to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists; they did absolutely nothing. We have given a coalition commitment to introduce such a register, as the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) confirmed from the Dispatch Box on Tuesday. He will publish a comprehensive consultation so that the widest range of views can be considered, with a view to introducing legislation providing for a statutory register of lobbyists.

Robert Syms: Neal Butterworth, editor of the influential Bournemouth Daily Echo, has drawn it to my attention that media passes for the Olympics are not being given out fairly to the local and regional press. May we have a statement from the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, so that our local media can be properly represented?

George Young: I understand why all our local papers are anxious to have access to next year’s Olympics. I will certainly raise this with Department for Culture, Media and Sport Ministers, although it might be a matter for the organisers of the Olympics. I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, and I will pass it on.

Kevin Brennan: May we have an urgent statement on whether any Conservative candidate at the last general election received illegal funding for foreign travel from foreign organisations linked to Adam Werritty?

George Young: If there is any evidence that anything illegal has taken place, the hon. Gentleman should notify the police.

Greg Mulholland: The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee has now published its report into pub companies, which shows that self-regulation has failed and that the Government must now legislate. The Government have said they will do that, so may we have a statement in the House from the responsible Minister, instead of just the normal response to the Select Committee report?

George Young: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his work in promoting the interests of those who run pubs and who often face onerous Pubco terms. I am aware of the report the hon. Gentleman mentions, which basically says that the voluntary agreement has not worked. I cannot anticipate when the Government will respond to that, but I will inform the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills of the hon. Gentleman’s appetite for an early announcement.

John Spellar: On 2 December last year I put a question about Southern Cross to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and
	received the dismissive reply that it was a matter for local authorities. I think he subsequently came to regret that response. An article in today’s
	Financial Times
	claims that from the summer of that year the chief executive of Southern Cross had been informing the Department that he wanted a meeting with the Minister in order to explain the seriousness of the problems and the possible consequences, but, again, the Minister said his diary was too full. May we have a statement from the Minister explaining his actions—or, rather, explaining his complete inertia?

George Young: A written ministerial statement on Southern Cross was published on Monday; the right hon. Gentleman may have seen it. Because of the piece in the press today, I have made some inquiries. There have been regular constructive discussions between the Government and Southern Cross representatives since the moment it became clear that the Government were in difficulty. Ministers took the situation seriously, and they were kept fully informed. There were numerous meetings between senior Department of Health officials, the company and others, to seek to formulate a solution that protected the health and well-being of the residents. Ministers were kept fully in the picture.

Margot James: Following today’s worrying report from the Care Quality Commission on the lamentable standards in the care of older people in the NHS—it found that 20% of the 100 hospitals it inspected were almost criminally negligent—may we have a debate on this subject?

George Young: In response to the previous question, I think that instead of saying Southern Cross was in difficulty, I said that the Government were in difficulty, which of course they never are.
	Like my hon. Friend, I was very concerned by the reports in today’s press. Everyone admitted to hospital deserves to be treated as an individual and with compassion and dignity, which is why we commissioned the report she mentions. It certainly shows the value of unannounced inspections. It found some exemplary care, but it also found that some hospitals were not getting even the basics right. The new Health and Social Care Bill gives new responsibilities to Monitor to integrate health care across health care services. I hope that everyone will learn the lessons: that some things need to be done tomorrow to put things right; that there are problems of culture, such as putting paperwork before patients; and that there is inadequate management training and leadership in hospitals. Some of these problems may have been going on for some time. Important lessons must be learned if we are to improve the quality of care in many of our hospitals.

David Wright: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence on the future profile of civilian jobs in the Ministry of Defence? Many people in my constituency are concerned that they will lose their jobs while he is flying around the world with his mate.

George Young: I understand why Labour Members want to continue on this issue, but the Secretary of State for Defence has a responsible job to do on behalf of this country and the Government. He should be
	allowed to get on with it and the hon. Gentleman should wait for the Cabinet Secretary’s report into the issues he raises.

John Glen: Given the recent decision by the Communities and Local Government Secretary to overturn the inspector’s decision to reject 500 new homes in Hampton Park II in Salisbury, may I urge the Leader of the House to table a debate on public understanding of localism? Local councillors, community groups and residents constructively engaged to persuade the inspector to turn the application down, and they are now bemused and do not understand what localism means.

George Young: I understand the concern of another of my parliamentary neighbours about the outcome of that decision in his constituency. My hon. Friend asks for a debate, but I have just announced a debate next Thursday on the national planning policy framework, which will provide an opportunity for him to raise that issue and get a response. The decision was issued on 21 September. The Secretary of State has no further jurisdiction in the matter, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits as we are still within the six-week period during which the decision can be challenged in the High Court.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Leader of the House will be aware that G20 meetings are increasingly becoming as important as those of the G8. The next G20 meeting, in November, will be particularly important. Will the Government agree to have a debate in advance of a G20 summit in which the House can express its views on the policies that the Government should put forward, as used to be the case for G8 meetings, and to ensure that there is a statement from the Prime Minister after the summit to report on and account for what has happened?

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern and I agree that such an approach would be desirable. I am not sure whether he has approached the Backbench Business Committee to see whether it would find time for such a debate, but I will certainly take account of what he has said in planning future Government business.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the rise in the number of photovoltaic cells on houses across the United Kingdom is a policy started by the former Government and rightly continued by this one. However, the rise of cowboys installing them is costing the country money and resources, and putting people’s long-term ownership of houses at risk. May we have a debate on this Government’s renewable energy policy to discuss the photovoltaic cells that are being put on householders’ roofs?

George Young: My hon. Friend might catch your eye, Mr Speaker, a week today during Department of Energy and Climate Change questions, but in the meantime I will alert the Secretary of State and ask him to write to my hon. Friend.

Valerie Vaz: The Leader of the House will be aware of the recent report showing that 20% of FTSE 100 companies do not have any women
	on their board and that it will take 20 years before one in three executives are women, so may we have an urgent debate to show everyone outside that this House believes in positive action and not just positive words?

George Young: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a speech about this a few days ago, urging the FTSE companies to do even better. As for a debate, the hon. Lady may wish to raise the matter with the Backbench Business Committee or, indeed, to apply to you, Mr Speaker, for a debate in Westminster Hall, so that we can have a proper discussion of this important issue.

Elizabeth Truss: The East of England strategic health authority published an independent review into Downham Market health centre, which found serious failings in oversight by the authorities, as no action was taken after four serious incidents at the health centre. I am very concerned that, as yet, no individuals have been held to account for those failures. Please may we have a statement from the Health Secretary on the steps he will take to ensure that people are accountable?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern to make sure that anyone guilty of misdemeanour is held accountable. This is a matter for the local NHS, and I understand that NHS Midlands and East is working with NHS Norfolk and the Norfolk Community Health and Care NHS Trust to take forward the report’s recommendations. I have been assured by NHS Norfolk that there will be accountability for the failings to which she refers.

Gerry Sutcliffe: When we discuss the Localism Bill next week, will the Government give a guarantee that the protections against the sale of playing fields—school playing fields or public playing fields—will still be in place? At the moment, there is nothing in the Bill to protect those playing fields.

George Young: The debate next Thursday is not on the Bill as such—it is on the policy framework—but the hon. Gentleman will be able to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, and raise those issues. In the meantime, I will alert the relevant Secretary of State to the fact that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the disposal of playing fields and that he is anxious that proper protection should be in place to ensure that children and others have access to recreational facilities.

Paul Maynard: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate in Government time on the report by the British Hospitality Association, which was published today and which was mentioned in The Times? The report calls for a reduction in VAT in the sector, as happens in many European countries, which would benefit all seaside towns, including my own, and greatly help local tourism in this country.

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about the impact of VAT on the hospitality sector, particularly in his constituency. He will know that taxation matters are for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will be coming to the House in November,
	as the shadow Leader of the House said. When he does so, my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to press him on the issue.

Nicholas Dakin: The Leader of the House announced a shorter week in November when detailing the calendar. Will he confirm that the Prime Minister will account to the House on 15 November, which is during that week?

George Young: If the House is not sitting on a particular day, it is difficult for the Prime Minister to come to be held to account. I say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I congratulate on his appointment to the Opposition Whips Office, that the Prime Minister has made more statements from this Dispatch Box than his predecessor, that he has stood here, on some occasions for hours on end, being held to account by the House and that he has appeared before the Liaison Committee, so my right hon. Friend has no fears about coming to the Dispatch Box to answer questions.

Sarah Newton: The Leader of the House will be well aware that lots of colleagues on the Government Benches were very concerned about the impact of the proposed pension reforms on a particular group of women. I welcome the idea that we will have some movement on that and a statement today. As this is such a vital issue, perhaps he could expand on what the Government are going to do. Will we see amendments to the Pensions Bill next week?

George Young: Yes, it is probably easiest if I refer my hon. Friend to the written ministerial statement, which sets out the amendments that are being tabled today. It states:
	“The amendment to Clause 1 will ameliorate the increase in State Pension age for around 245,000 women and 240,000 men and reduce total savings from the increase to 66 by around £1.1 billion…It maintains our policy to equalise the State Pension age for men and women in 2018 and increase to 66 by 2020.”
	My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to intervene in that debate, but I note that she welcomes the fact that the Government have listened to the concerns that have been expressed and taken steps to mitigate the impact on women of the increase in the state pension age.

Kerry McCarthy: The Leader of the House will, I hope, be aware of this week’s damning report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which predicts that an additional 500,000 children will be living in absolute poverty by 2015 as a direct result of this Government’s policies. May we have an urgent debate on the Government’s abject failure to keep their promise to end child poverty?

George Young: The hon. Lady will know that progress towards the target of eliminating child poverty by 2020 stalled under the previous Government. We remain committed to that target. The universal credit will take 600,000 adults and 450,000 children out of poverty, as the IFS said. The report also examined tax and benefits, but did not look at some of the broader things that the Government are doing, for example, in
	the Work programme. I am sure that she will be pleased to hear that we remain committed to the target of eliminating child poverty by 2020.

Gavin Williamson: I am chairman of the all-party group for motor neurone disease, and the group has recently produced a report on access to care for those suffering from the disease. It is a dreadful, devastating disease; would it be possible to have a debate on access to palliative care for sufferers?

George Young: I commend the work that the all-party group—my hon. Friend and other Members from both sides of the House—have done to emphasise the importance of palliative care for those who suffer from motor neurone disease. I think it would be an excellent subject for a debate in this House, either nominated by the Backbench Business Committee or in Westminster Hall. The Government would very much like to hear more about the report to which my hon. Friend has just referred.

Bill Esterson: In answer to my written question yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), told me that he would not be considering plans put forward by staff at Crosby coastguard that would save the Government money on plans for a new maritime operations centre. The Crosby plan would use existing buildings and makes revenue savings, too, whereas the Government plan is for a new build. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any plan that saves the Government money should at least be evaluated, not disregarded before such an evaluation takes place, and will he ask his colleague to reconsider his decision?

George Young: Of course, the Government are interested in all options that might save money, and I will put that option to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are very pressed for time and I am not likely to be able to call many more Members, so there is a premium on brevity if we are to maximise the number of contributors.

Henry Smith: I have recently been dealing with a case on behalf of two constituents who were dismissed from their jobs with a commercial cleaning firm called Jani-King, allegedly for being British. May we have a debate on discrimination against British workers in this country?

George Young: If anything illegal has taken place, I hope the appropriate authorities will be notified. I shall share my hon. Friend’s concern with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and see whether anything irregular has taken place.

Grahame Morris: There are reports that up to 60 NHS hospitals face serious financial difficulties due to the new burdens being imposed by NHS reforms. As there are risks that such trusts could be taken over by private sector health interests, may we
	have an urgent debate or an urgent statement, so that we can take some action before the situation becomes terminal?

George Young: No trust can be taken over by a private sector concern, but I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that any financial problems confronting his trust or other trusts would be even worse without the extra resources committed by this Government, which his party opposed.

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) recently received a written answer from the hon. Member who represents the House of Commons Commission showing that the marginal costs of the House sitting for just two weeks in September could be £1.5 million on an ongoing basis. May we have a debate on the merits of moving the party conference season to save that money for the public purse?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

George Young: I thought my hon. Friend was going to suggest abolishing the party conference season, which might have received an even greater cheer—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] He raises a serious issue, in that the party conference season imposes some constraints on the parliamentary calendar, and I shall bring his remarks to the attention of the chairmen of my party and the opposite numbers in the parliamentary Labour party and the other parties—[ Interruption. ] We have a chairman and a chairwoman. I shall see whether there is any emerging consensus on the treatment of political conferences in the future.

Nia Griffith: I note that the Leader of the House passed very hastily over the answer to the first question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) today about the meetings between Adam Werritty, Ministers and members of Downing street staff. Will he assure us that that information will be made promptly available and that if there is anything of substance in it, it will be the subject of a statement to the House?

George Young: I do not think it makes sense to have a running commentary on the inquiry by the Cabinet Secretary into the Secretary of State for Defence and related matters. I have said that the inquiry will deal with all unanswered questions and outstanding issues, and the sooner it is brought to a conclusion, the better. In the meantime, I think it is sensible to avoid speculation.

Bob Blackman: In 1997 the incoming Prime Minister said that his priorities were “education, education, education”, yet 14 years on, a publication has shown that in reading, 15-year-olds in our classrooms are a year behind those in our competitor countries. May we have an urgent debate on the actions that the Government will take to remove this appalling legacy for the people whose future has been prejudiced?

George Young: I would welcome such a debate. Some of those issues were touched on in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education on Monday. I would welcome further opportunities to debate the steps that we are taking to drive up standards of education in our schools.

Heidi Alexander: Following the riots in the summer, the Prime Minister announced a cross-departmental review of gangs and serious youth violence. A strategy is due to be published this month. Can the House have a debate on this vital issue in Government time?

George Young: There will be a debate this afternoon in Westminster Hall on the riots, and the hon. Lady might like to go to that and to ask that question. She is right to say that there is an ongoing report into gang violence and related issues, and I hope that it will be made available in the relatively near future.

Graham Evans: Well over 2,000 early-day motions have been tabled in this Parliament so far, and it is estimated that they cost the taxpayer around £1 million each and every year. Given that in the last year we had a spending review that carefully considered every aspect of public expenditure, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right that we should now have a debate to examine the cost-effectiveness and value of early-day motions?

Hon. Members: Table an early-day motion!

George Young: It is suggested that my hon. Friend table an early-day motion to abolish early-day motions. He is not alone in believing that the costs of the current arrangements outweigh the benefits, but on the other hand many people place some value on early-day motions. Any debate on early-day motions should take place in Backbench Business Committee time and be informed by the views of the Procedure Committee; its Chairman was in his place a few moments ago, and I shall draw those remarks to his attention.

Chris Bryant: There are only three more days allocated for private Members’ Bills before the end of this Session, but there are 96 such Bills now tabled for consideration on those days. Some of them are completely and utterly bonkers, because, frankly, they come from Members whose grasp of reality is somewhat strained anyway—[ Interruption. ] Mine is splendid, obviously. As only one more of those Bills is likely to become law in this Session, does that not show that the system for examining private Members’ Bills is now completely bust? We need to reform it. Before the Leader of the House says that that is up to the Chair of the Procedure Committee, could he please show some leadership on this matter in his remaining weeks as Leader of the House, as he will have to hand all the business over to the Backbench Business Committee by the start of the third Session?

George Young: I was hoping that I had a little bit more than a week left in this post. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Procedure Committee is looking at private Members’ Bills, the way in which they are treated, and whether it makes sense to deal with them on Fridays. We have allocated more Fridays to private Members’ Bills to reflect the length of this Session. Despite the hon. Gentleman’s rather dismissive remarks about the Procedure Committee, I think this is something that it is worth its while investigating.

Oliver Colvile: Would my right hon. Friend be willing to have a debate on mental health issues for young people? According to today’s edition of the Plymouth Herald, a very good organ in my constituency:
	“Hundreds of vulnerable children in Plymouth are having to wait months for mental health treatment”,
	and 90 have had to wait beyond the 18 weeks allowed.

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. Funding for child and adolescent mental health services for local authorities has been maintained and is included within funding provided for ongoing personal social services. That funding is due to rise in line with inflation through to 2014-15, but it is for commissioners at a local level to decide how best to spend the money.

Paul Blomfield: May we have a debate on the Department for Transport’s policy of installing station barriers even when they block pedestrian access to established routes for non-rail users? Such is the situation in Sheffield. The previous Government made a commitment that no barriers would be installed until alternative access routes were provided, but the current Government have changed their mind, apparently.

George Young: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. I will raise it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and ask him to write to him.

Robert Halfon: May we have a debate on the history of the Conservative party so we can gently remind our coalition partners that, far from being the party that sent children up chimneys, we are the party of Wilberforce, who abolished slavery, the party of Disraeli, who emancipated the working classes, the party of Baldwin, who brought in universal suffrage, and the party of Thatcher, who turned Britain into a property-owning democracy?

George Young: Whose birthday it is today, and I am sure that the whole House wishes Baroness Thatcher a very happy birthday. It was not right to say that the party—my party—is the ideological descendent of the people who sent children up chimneys. Lord Shaftesbury introduced the legislation against the practice; I am not sure where the Liberals were on that matter.

Eilidh Whiteford: Following the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday to uphold Scottish Parliament legislation that will allow people who have been exposed to asbestos to receive compensation, will the Government now introduce legislation here to enable pleural plaque sufferers across the UK to achieve justice?

George Young: I shall certainly raise that matter with the appropriate Minister—perhaps the Attorney-General, the Justice Secretary or the Home Secretary. The hon. Lady raises an important issue and I shall ensure that she gets an answer.

James Morris: May we have a debate about immigration? Many of my constituents are keen to see the Government make
	progress on their promise to reduce migration from the hundreds of thousands that came in under the previous Government to a more reasonable level.

George Young: I would welcome such a debate and I am sure that the Opposition would too, as they now recognise that this is an issue that they did not take seriously. We could set out the measures we are taking on students, family visas and work permits to bring the numbers down to a sustainable level.

Stephen McCabe: Following the Home Secretary’s conference speech, which drew such praise from the Lord Chancellor, when can we expect to have an opportunity to discuss her amendments to the Human Rights Act 1998?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have just set up a commission to consider the Human Rights Act. When that reports, there may be an opportunity to debate its recommendations and conclusions.

Andrew Stephenson: May I add my name to those of the Opposition Members who are calling for a debate on NHS funding? NHS East Lancashire has just been given the go-ahead for a new £10 million, state-of-the-art health centre in Colne town centre, subject to the approval of NHS Lancashire and the North of England strategic health authority. This Government’s £12.5 billion increase in investment in the NHS has been widely welcomed, and stands in stark contrast to the Labour party’s proposed cuts of £28 million.

George Young: I am glad that the extra funding is being put to good use in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I remind him that the shadow Secretary of State for Health said:
	“It is irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms”.

Mark Hendrick: Is the Leader of the House aware of the 1,400 job losses that will occur at BAE Systems as a result of the Government’s cutting the defence budget too far and too fast? That is having a devastating effect on families across Lancashire and on the manufacturing base in this country. May we have a debate specifically on the future of manufacturing in this country?

George Young: I know that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Ministry of Defence are anxious to mitigate the problems that confront BAE Systems and a number of towns throughout the country that have been impacted by the reduction in defence spending—which I suspect the hon. Gentleman’s party would have had to do in any event had it been re-elected. I shall certainly pursue the particular issue in his constituency and see what steps can be taken to mitigate the impact on unemployment.

Kris Hopkins: The Leader of the House will be aware that many of us have struggled to enjoy the rugby down under in recent weeks—

Chris Bryant: We’ve enjoyed it!

Kris Hopkins: May I wish Wales every success in their match against France? In Yorkshire, not only do we have Leeds Rhinos, who have thrashed our Lancastrian opposition, but the Keighley Cougars have become the grand finalist champions. May we have a statement heralding their support please?

George Young: I am certainly happy to wish Wales very well in the semi-final.

Iain Wright: Earlier this month, Hartlepool borough council passed a vote of no confidence in the management of the local NHS trust as a result of the loss of accident and emergency services at Hartlepool hospital. The Secretary of State has said that this is a local matter, but the local authority has made its views clear. I know that other areas, such as Chase Farm, have similar problems, so could we have a debate in Government time on local accountability and the reconfiguration of services in the NHS?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman has made a powerful case for the Health and Social Care Bill, which is currently in another place. The Bill reinforces the links between the NHS and local government, and gives local government much more influence on how the NHS will be run in future.

Richard Graham: As energy bills rocket and more of my constituents might be unable to pay their energy bills—especially if this winter is as hard as has been widely predicted—may I endorse the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for a debate so that the Government can reassure the House that the price of developing greener technologies will not fall on our poorest pensioners?

George Young: My hon. Friend is quite right. There was a written ministerial statement earlier this week reminding everybody that cold weather payments are £25 a week when activated. Those payments complement the winter fuel payments, the green deal and other measures we are taking to reduce the costs of
	energy. There is also work going on to increase transparency and the ease with which people can switch from one supplier to another. I would welcome such a debate.

Nick Smith: May I press the Leader of the House and ask him whether we may please have a statement on NHS care for the elderly? As he knows, today’s Times describes it as
	“a scandal that is getting worse”.
	The House should discuss this as soon as possible.

George Young: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and other hon. Members have raised the reports in today’s press regarding the Care Quality Commission investigation into a number of hospitals. I would welcome such a debate, and I suggest that he should approach the Backbench Business Committee to see whether it might find time for one.

Denis MacShane: These are unhappy times for employment. May we have a debate to congratulate Government Ministers on adding to total taxpayer-funded employment by having more special advisers—not including the unofficial one—than the Labour Government? Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister will commit to his 2009 statement that Liberal Democrat special advisers will be paid from party political funds? As I like the House, and the Leader of the House, I am willing to work for him unpaid as a part-time special adviser if it helps to resolve the problem.

George Young: That is a very generous offer, but I have total confidence in my current special adviser, who needs no reinforcements. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that on coming to office we appointed fewer special advisers than the outgoing Government.

Mr Speaker: I must thank the Leader of the House and colleagues for their extreme self-discipline, which has meant that all 43 Back Benchers who wished to take part in business questions had the opportunity to do so. It shows what can be done when we put our minds to it. I am most grateful to all colleagues.

Middle East and North Africa

William Hague: Events in the middle east continue to have far-reaching implications for the peace and stability of the region and for our own security. Libya continues its profound transformation after more than 40 years of dictatorial rule. On 20 September the national transitional council took up Libya’s seat at the United Nations General Assembly. Order has been restored in Benghazi and Tripoli, as I saw when I visited with the Prime Minister last month, and the NTC has consolidated its hold on the vast majority of Libya’s territory.
	The remaining Gaddafi supporters are concentrated in Bani Walid and Sirte, where there has been intense fighting. The NTC has said that it aims to declare the liberation of Libya once Sirte has fallen, to move swiftly to form a transitional Government within 30 days and to hold elections for a constitutional assembly within the following eight months. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary visited Tripoli and Misrata last weekend. His talks with Libyan leaders confirmed their clear understanding of the need for quick formation of a new, inclusive Government.
	Colonel Gaddafi’s location remains unknown, but scores of his closest supporters and family members, including his wife and daughter, have fled over Libya’s borders. Interpol has issued red notices for him, his son Saif al-Islam and his former director of military intelligence, all of whom have been indicted by the International Criminal Court. No state should harbour any of those fugitives from justice.
	Last week NATO agreed that the positive trend in Libya is irreversible, but that not all Libya’s population is yet safe from attack. We will continue operations to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1973 for as long as is necessary, at the request of the NTC and with the authority of Security Council resolution 2009, which was unanimously agreed on 16 September and established a new UN support mission in Libya.
	British planes and attack helicopters have flown some 3,000 sorties across Libya and have damaged or destroyed some 1,000 former regime targets. Their precision targeting has minimised civilian casualties and saved countless lives, helping Libyans to gain their freedom. I pay tribute to them and all our partners involved in the NATO operation.
	We are supporting the NTC’s own plans for political transition in Libya, through the friends of Libya group and the allocation of up to £20.6 million in UK funding for stabilisation, including for the rule of law, police, elections, essential basic services and the removal of mines and unexploded ordnance.
	Libya’s economic growth will be an important component of its future stability, and on 26 September the Minister for Trade and Investment, my noble Friend Lord Green, visited Tripoli with a trade delegation, followed by a conference in London for representatives of British business.
	By contrast with the progress being made in Libya, appalling violence and repression continues in Syria. Some 2,900 people, including 187 children, have died at
	the hands of the regime and its armed forces in just seven months. Along with the United States and our European partners, we tabled a draft UN Security Council resolution condemning the Syrian regime’s use of force, calling for an end to violence and threatening sanctions, while ruling out military force. Nine of the 15 members of the UN Security Council voted in favour of that resolution, but Russia and China, regrettably, chose to block it. It is a mistake on their part to side with a brutal regime, rather than with the people of Syria.
	We will go on working with other nations to intensify the pressure on the regime. On 24 September the seventh round of EU sanctions came into force. They now target a total of 56 regime figures and 18 Syrian entities, and include an arms embargo and a ban on the purchase, import or transport from Syria of crude oil and petroleum products. As the EU previously imported over 90% of Syria’s crude oil, and in 2010 oil revenues accounted for a quarter of all Syrian state revenues, the import ban will have a significant impact. We expect the EU to adopt further sanctions soon against a key regime entity. Turkey has also announced plans to adopt unilateral measures against Syria. We will look to work with it and other like-minded partners to increase the pressure on the regime, as well as continuing discussions at the UN.
	Too much blood has been spilled for that regime to recover its credibility. President Assad should step aside now and allow others to take forward reform. We urge the Syrian opposition to develop a peaceful vision for the future of their country, and welcome the formation of the new Syrian national council. Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) met senior members of the council in Paris, and I met Syrian activists in London at the end of last month. The Syrian ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office this morning and told that any harassment or intimidation of Syrians in our country is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
	There is no one model for democratic development in the middle east. We must work with the grain of each society, while standing up for universal human rights, recognising that the pace of change will vary in each country and offering our assistance where we can and where it is requested.
	On 23 October, the Tunisian people will vote freely for the first time in their history. The Tunisian authorities have worked hard to prepare for elections. Tough economic challenges lie ahead for the new Government, but they have achieved a great deal in the space of 10 months.
	In Egypt, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has announced parliamentary elections beginning on 28 November, followed by a referendum on a new constitution and presidential elections. I spoke to the Egyptian Foreign Minister last night to express our deep concern about recent unrest in Cairo, and to argue for the need for steps to avoid further tensions and uphold the right to freedom of religion and worship in Egypt.
	Members on both sides of the House will have concerns about events in Bahrain, including the use of military-led courts to try civilian defendants, including doctors and nurses. We welcome the announcement by the Bahraini Attorney-General that the cases of the medical staff
	will now be retried in a civil court on 23 October, and the expected report of the independent commission of inquiry on 30 October. We attach great importance to the publication of that report. It is a major opportunity for Bahrain to demonstrate that it will adhere to international standards, meet its human rights commitments and take action when abuses are identified.
	In Yemen, President Saleh’s return without a clear plan to transfer power has worsened the severe economic, humanitarian and security crisis. We continue to work for and to urge an orderly transition of power, along with our Gulf partners and other allies. We are now seeking discussion of the situation at the UN Security Council.
	The House will know that the United States has announced the disruption of a major conspiracy to assassinate the Saudi ambassador on American soil in Washington. There are indications that that deplorable plot was directed by elements of the Iranian regime, with the involvement of senior members of the Islamic revolutionary guard corp’s Quds force. This would appear to constitute a major escalation in Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism outside its borders. We are in close touch with the US authorities and will work to agree an international response, along with the US, the rest of the EU and Saudi Arabia.
	Separately, we welcome the King of Saudi Arabia’s recent announcement that women in Saudi Arabia will soon have the right to vote and run in municipal elections and to become members of the Shura Council, the King’s advisory body. That will be a significant step forward for the people of Saudi Arabia, and I welcome the King’s commitment to listening to the aspirations of the Saudi people.
	I also welcome the progress that has been made in Morocco, where elections will be held on 24 November, and in Jordan, where we look forward to the implementation of amendments to the Jordanian constitution, strengthening the rights of citizens and the parliamentary process. Positive, peaceful change is taking place in much of the Arab world.
	The case for progress on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become more urgent as the pace of change in the region has quickened. We support a settlement with borders based on 1967 lines, with equivalent land swaps, a just settlement for refugees and Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states.
	On 23 September at the UN General Assembly, President Abbas lodged an application with the UN Security Council for full Palestinian membership of the United Nations. This application is now being considered by the UN membership committee. Also on 23 September, the Quartet adopted a statement that provides a clear timetable for a conclusion to negotiations. We have called on both parties to return to talks on that basis. I welcome Baroness Ashton’s statement on 9 October that the parties will be invited to meet in the coming days. Success in this will require bold, decisive leadership from both sides, as well as painful compromises. Palestinians should focus on returning to talks, rather than setting too many preconditions.
	For the Israelis, time is slipping away for them to act in their own strategic interest. The expansion of settlements must end; they are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. That is why we voted in favour of
	the UN Security Council resolution on this subject in February and why we continue to condemn the announcement of new settlements. The Israeli Government need to take bolder steps than Israeli leaders have been prepared to do in recent years.
	Separately, I welcome the agreement between Israel and Hamas to release the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, as part of a prisoner exchange. Holding him in captivity was utterly unjustified from the beginning, yet it has gone on for five long years, and the whole House will warmly welcome his return home.
	The Government are determined to do all we can to support peaceful economic and political reform across the middle east and north Africa through our Arab partnership initiative, the work of our embassies and our role in the European Union and the G8.
	In Tunisia, we are supporting voter education in rural areas. We are helping the government of Morocco to improve transparency in Government Departments. In Algeria, we are supporting a loans scheme for young entrepreneurs. In Egypt, we are helping to establish an academy to provide new female candidates and their election campaigners with relevant skills.
	We helped to secure a revised European neighbourhood policy, which makes an ambitious offer of much deeper economic and trade integration and more explicitly conditional financial assistance, and the G8 has pledged $38 billion for the region. In both cases, we want to see policy turned into action, so that the whole of Europe and the G8 can act as magnets for change. The Arab spring has brought conflict and uncertainty, but it undoubtedly has the potential to bring about the greatest single advance in human freedom since the end of the cold war.
	We are also determined to learn the wider lessons of these events. On 16 March I announced a review of policy and practice relating to the export of equipment that might be used for internal repression, in particular crowd-control equipment. I have this morning laid a further written ministerial statement before the House outlining a package of proposals resulting from that review, which concluded that measures should be taken to improve aspects of UK export policy. We will introduce a new mechanism to allow Ministers to respond more rapidly and decisively to the outbreak of conflict or to unpredicted events like the Arab spring, by suspending licensing. Our proposals also include steps to strengthen decision-making when we provide security and justice assistance overseas. That announcement does not preclude additional measures or further strengthening of the system.
	On all these issues, the Government will continue to defend human rights and support political and economic freedom and to work closely with our allies in the interests of peace and stability for this vital region.

Douglas Alexander: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and for advance sight of it this morning. On the Government review of policy and practice relating to the export of equipment that might be used for internal repression, we will study the package carefully. I welcome the statement, given continuing events in the middle east, and note that the last time the House had the opportunity to discuss such a statement was on 29 June.
	Let me turn first to Libya, where our forces are still engaged in upholding United Nations Security Council resolutions. Much progress has been made in Libya since the House last met, thanks in no small measure to the continuing and characteristic professionalism of our armed forces in enforcing those resolutions. Fighting continues around Sirte, as the Foreign Secretary says, and I would be grateful if he gave further details of the situation on the ground. I note the presence of the Defence Secretary, who has said that the fall of Sirte is “getting very close”; perhaps the Foreign Secretary is willing to give a time scale, given continuing events in the city.
	Will the Foreign Secretary give his reaction to concerns expressed yesterday by the Libyan oil and finance Minister, Mr Ali Tarhouni, and the deputy chief of the national transitional council’s executive committee, that weapons are still entering the country in a way that could threaten its future stability?
	On Syria, the right hon. Gentleman rightly condemned President Assad and urged him again to step aside. We welcome the fact that Europe has moved to broaden sanctions on the regime, including on its oil sales; Labour Members have argued for that for some months. However, it is six months since Ministers stated that Syria was
	“at a fork in the road.”
	In light of the continuing bloodshed and repression, will the Foreign Secretary give some detail of the character of the Turkish unilateral actions now under consideration, and will he give us more information on the expected extension of European Union sanctions?
	I have to say that I was somewhat disappointed by the brevity of the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on Bahrain, given his previous recognition of the need for more fundamental reform there and, of course, its historically strong links with the United Kingdom. Indeed, in March the Foreign Secretary told the House that
	“the King of Bahrain pledged himself…to further such reforms.”—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1137.]
	However, in recent months, there has been little evidence of real and substantive reform, and further evidence of deeply troubling events, such as the sentencing of the doctors whom the Foreign Secretary spoke about. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that continuing worries about Bahrain will be met with ongoing diplomatic efforts from the British Government, and will he set out what steps he intends to take? In April, the Foreign Secretary expressed his frustration that
	“In Yemen, attempts at agreeing a political transition have repeatedly stalled or failed.”—[Official Report, 4 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 753.]
	Six months on, can he tell us what further steps he is planning to take to help prevent further dangerous deterioration in the situation there?
	Recent events in Cairo will also cause concern to many who remain friends to the new Egypt. I join the Foreign Secretary in condemning unequivocally the killing of 24 Coptic Christians after recent demonstrations. That is just the latest, though clearly one of the most serious, causes of concern. The deaths in Cairo have reportedly prompted the resignation of Egypt’s Finance Minister, Hazem el-Beblawi; in addition, Egyptian output
	fell by 4.2% on the previous year in the first quarter of this year alone. Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern about what will happen to the Egyptian economy, and that access to European markets in particular needs to be accelerated?
	Eight months after the revolution, the armed forces continue to run the country through their supreme council. The emergency laws originally introduced by President Mubarak have been maintained, and there is at least some talk of the presidential election being slipped to 2015. Will the Foreign Secretary share with the House the Government’s assessment of the situation, and his judgment as to when presidential elections will take place and when power will effectively be transferred from military to civilian authority?
	Let me associate myself entirely with the Foreign Secretary’s remarks about the prospect of Gilad Shalit’s long-overdue release, and the recognition that a negotiated two-state solution remains the route towards peace and stability in the region. There is much common ground on the issue across the House. However, I note the carefully chosen words that the Foreign Secretary used in relation to the recognition of Palestinian statehood in the United Nations. Will he confirm today that it has never been the case that that recognition can only follow the conclusion of the negotiations? Will he offer the House a little more insight on where those discussions in the Security Council have reached?
	Let me turn to Iran. I concur with the concerns expressed by the Foreign Secretary, but will he give us the British Government’s view of where that leaves the E3 plus 3 process? In June, he promised:
	“Until Iran negotiates seriously, international pressure against it will only increase.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 35.]
	Will he set out what measures he expects to use to increase that pressure? We know that being able to see protests elsewhere in the middle east and north Africa, online or on satellite television, was a key driver of the changes that we witnessed this year, so what action is the Government taking to support the BBC Persian service, which has been subject to repeated attempts to jam and otherwise block its important information?
	These remain days of great possibility and great peril for the middle east and north Africa. I hope that the Government continue to keep the House updated in the weeks and months ahead.

William Hague: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those questions; I think that they reflect the large measure of agreement across the House on many of the issues. I shall run through his questions in the order in which he asked them.
	The right hon. Gentleman was quite right, of course, to pay an additional tribute to our armed forces and the work that they have done on Libya. He asked what the situation is in Sirte. There remain two small, steadily shrinking areas where the pro-Gaddafi forces fight on. I do not think that it is possible to give a time scale—[Interruption.]—well, a more precise time scale than anyone has given so far, which is what the shadow Foreign Secretary was asking for. We have always resisted putting precise time scales on things. However, clearly great advances have been made by the free Libya forces
	in recent weeks and days, and there are now two small areas left. That shows that the pro-Gaddafi forces that remain are in a very difficult position.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right to ask about weapons coming into the country. Indeed, that is part of the issue of the stabilisation of Libya. The national transitional council has been consistently underestimated in the past six months, at every stage. International opinion, many media commentators and sometimes those in this House thought that the council did not have the capacity or expertise to get a grip on its country. It has shown at every stage that it does, and I think that it will, in addition, have that ability when it comes to controlling the supply of weapons. We are giving it assistance in tracking down some of the weapons of the Gaddafi regime that have gone missing, and that assistance will continue.
	Syria has long since passed the fork in the road. The right hon. Gentleman is right that back in March, I said that it was at a fork in the road—I said it for a while—but the Assad regime is now far past the fork, and sadly it took the wrong fork. That is why we said in August, along with the United States and our European partners, that Assad should go, and that the regime should come to an end. It is for the Turks to announce, of course, the details of their proposals. For reasons that will become obvious, I cannot give details of the next measure that the European Union will take; action against a major Syrian entity will be announced pretty soon.
	The right hon. Gentleman was worried about the brevity of my remarks on Bahrain, but that was simply to comply with Mr Speaker’s strictures. One could talk for hours on any of the subjects that we are discussing, and if the House sets aside the time, I will be delighted to do so. Over the past few months, Bahrain has taken some actions that are welcome, and some that are very unwelcome; it has gone in different directions—sometimes at the same time, speaking frankly. It was welcome that it announced the commission of inquiry into abuses, and indeed put internationally respected people on it. I also welcome its decision, after the international outcry about the trial of the doctors and nurses, about the retrial. It is welcome that it has attempted, since the time that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about, a national dialogue in Bahrain, yet of course there are many valid, legitimate criticisms as well, and allegations of human rights abuses. That national dialogue has not yet been successful in bringing everybody together in Bahrain.
	The diplomatic message to Bahrain is communicated in many different ways, including by me, in my conversations with the Foreign Minister of Bahrain. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), is in regular discussion with the Bahraini authorities. The National Security Adviser, Sir Peter Ricketts, recently visited Bahrain and made clear our views on all these matters, so I want to put the emphasis for the next 17 days, up to the publication of the commission of inquiry’s report, on the great importance that I think all of us in the House attach to that, because the credibility of the report and the readiness to act on it will be an important test of how Bahrain will approach the coming weeks and months.
	In Yemen, we are taking many steps to support an orderly transition of power. I pay tribute again to the staff in our embassy in Yemen, who work in what is
	perhaps the most dangerous situation that any of our diplomats face around the world. I visited them there in February. They do a great job in supporting the Gulf Co-operation Council’s efforts to promote dialogue and trying to persuade all sides to sign up to the orderly transition of power. We continue to work closely with the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, on this. As I have said, we are about to discuss this in the United Nations Security Council and are considering whether a resolution there would add to the international pressure on the President to sign up to an orderly transition of power.
	I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the Egyptian economy. I expressed those concerns to the Egyptian Foreign Minister when I talked with him last night and, in particular, asked him and the Egyptian Government to take steps to give investors in Egypt greater confidence about both security and in relation to recent court decisions. That is very important to British businesses, which are the largest investors in Egypt, particularly in the oil and gas sectors. He undertook to do that, and UK Ministers will of course strongly reiterate these concerns on forthcoming visits.
	The right hon. Gentleman is also right to raise concerns about the timetable for presidential elections slipping. When I asked the Egyptian Foreign Minister about that yesterday, he said that he believed that the elections would take place by the summer of next year. According to other commentators, that is an optimistic timetable. Without interfering in the sovereign affairs of Egypt, I think that we can continue to express our view that the sooner such elections take place, the better. Egypt of course needs clear and strong civilian leadership in the form of a democratically elected President, and that cannot come about too soon.
	The right hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement on welcoming the release of Gilad Shalit. The Security Council is considering the membership application of the Palestinians through its normal procedures. When and how to take that forward will be partly up to the Security Council and partly up to its members. There is currently no specific proposition before the Security Council on this. He said that I had expressed carefully chosen words on the issue. They are very carefully chosen, because words really matter on this issue. It is a delicate and difficult subject. Our words are all directed towards trying to bring about the resumption of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. How we act in the Security Council or on any motion that may come before the UN General Assembly will be determined by how we can bring about a resumption of negotiations. All 27 EU countries have withheld a verdict on motions at the UN, partly because there is currently no specific motion to vote on, but also to maximise our leverage over both Israelis and Palestinians to return to talks. That is the basis of our position and I think that it would be wrong to move away from it at the moment.
	On Iran, we announced considerable additional European sanctions at the end of May. We are working on further sanctions, but I am not in a position to announce those today. The attempted action revealed by the United States this week makes a strong case for additional measures, which we are now discussing with our partners. The right hon. Gentleman rightly identified the importance of the BBC Persian service, through which we should communicate at every opportunity.
	Attempts are made to block that, but we of course support the service politically, diplomatically and technically in any way we can.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have taken quite a long time so far, so we need brevity in the questions that will be asked and certainly more brevity in the answers.

Lee Scott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the advancements that could be made after the long-overdue release of Gilad Shalit could be followed by Hamas agreeing to recognise the state of Israel and renounce violence?

William Hague: This successful negotiation is a ray of hope in a difficult and often bleak situation in the middle east. It shows that a successful negotiation can be carried out with the involvement of Israel and, as was necessary in this case, Hamas, through the good offices of Egypt, and I congratulated the Egyptian Foreign Minister on Egypt’s role in this. It would of course be welcome if Hamas were to move away from its rigid positions. If peace is to be brought about, it is very important that all concerned recognise Israel’s right to exist, support previous agreements and denounce the use of violence. It would be very welcome if Hamas would do those things or make concrete moves towards them.

Tony Lloyd: On the same theme, does the Foreign Secretary accept that the continued economic siege of Gaza creates the space for the most extreme voices to gain traction there? If we are to see movement towards a proper negotiation between the Israelis and the Palestinians, is it not necessary for that economic siege to be lifted?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman’s terminology is slightly different from how I would describe the situation, but yes, we think that the Israelis should act to allow more goods into and out of Gaza. We have criticised the current policy on many occasions, although there have been some improvements over the past year. I agree with the gist of his remarks. Often the effect of the policy has been to strengthen the position of Hamas domestically within Gaza and its financial interests there. It would be wiser for Israel to change the policy, just as it is necessary for Hamas to change its policies in the way I have just described.

Simon Hughes: We have seen the winds of change blowing though north Africa and the middle east in an encouraging way and the British Government have been strong and robust in their words and actions, for which I congratulate the Foreign Secretary. We have also seen the opportunities in Israel and Palestine with the pending release of Gilad Shalit and the deal. It would be helpful, and compatible with the negotiations and Baroness Ashton’s intervention, if we ensured that Israel knows that Britain’s objective will be to recognise a Palestinian state as soon as possible so that there can be parity and equality in the negotiations and their conclusions?

William Hague: It is of course our objective to help bring about a two-state solution. We believe in and want to see a Palestinian state, but that state will only be a truly viable state, in control of its own territory and able to make its own decisions, as a result of negotiations with Israel. We can pass all the resolutions we like at the United Nations, or not, but what is required is a successful negotiation. That is what we must keep in mind. Our attitude to the recognition and inclusion of Palestine at the United Nations is determined by how we can restart negotiations. I put it that way round, but the objective is absolutely as my right hon. Friend describes it—to have a Palestinian state.

Gerald Kaufman: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about carefully chosen words with regard to the Palestinian application for membership of the United Nations, will he note that the carefully chosen words of Obama and Clinton are already intended to oppose the application totally and bully and blackmail other countries as well as the Palestinians into opposing it? Will he assure the House that the Government will not succumb to that bullying and blackmailing and that they will do the right thing for the Palestinians?

William Hague: Of course, I work closely with Secretary Clinton on this and other issues, so I do not characterise the United States’ policy as the right hon. Gentleman does. Nevertheless, there are differences between us and the United States in our approach to the issue. We voted in opposite ways on the resolution on settlements in February, and we have a different way of handling the Palestinian approach to the UN: the United States has discouraged it—that is absolutely right.
	I believe, however, that President Abbas did achieve at the UN General Assembly the highlighting of the issue in front of the world. Nothing technically changed at the United Nations, but he did achieve that and did press on the world the urgency of it—and he was right to do that. So we do differ from the United States in many things that we say on the issue, although we share with them the objective of a negotiated two-state solution.

Jane Ellison: I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and in particular I am very encouraged by mention of training and support, and whatever, for female candidates in Egypt. Can he assure me that the Government will continue to take a leading role in pressing for women to benefit from the new political and economic freedoms that we hope will sweep across the region?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. That is of immense importance and one of the potentially very exciting aspects of the ongoing change in the Arab world. Senior people in Saudi Arabia told me before the recent announcement by the King that they cannot treat the next generation of women in the same way as the previous generation—they know that.
	We have made the case in all our contacts with the Libyan authorities for the much greater involvement of women in their public life. The International Development Secretary and I met leading women in civil society in
	Benghazi on our visit there in June, so we will continue very much to encourage that, and I agree with my hon. Friend.

Valerie Vaz: Does the Foreign Secretary know why the Bahraini doctors and nurses are on trial in any court, criminal or civil, bearing in mind that they were just doing their jobs and could be covered by international humanitarian law?

William Hague: It is absolutely not my brief to defend the Bahraini Government in their handling of the situation. There are allegations about those doctors and nurses, and some in Bahrain argue that they were not going about their jobs but doing other things. It is not for me, however, to state those allegations or to agree with them. Those people should have been tried, if they needed to be tried at all, in a transparent way, in a civil court and with, of course, a fair judgment at the end. Therefore, we welcome the decision that they should be retried, and we will all watch very closely how that retrial takes place and what the verdicts are.

Andrew Murrison: The Foreign Secretary is right to draw attention to the elections being held in Morocco next month and to their importance. What significance does he ascribe to the far-reaching constitutional reforms announced as part of the referendum held in July in that country? Does he agree, as he has before, that Morocco offers a beacon of hope in a region that has been blighted by conflict and violent disorder over the past several months?

William Hague: Yes, I do agree. The King of Morocco has shown a determination to be ahead of the curve in the demand for change, in his own country and throughout the region, and that should be strongly welcomed. I will visit Morocco shortly to see for myself what is happening and to discuss those matters in more detail. It is part of the excitement that we should feel about what is now possible in north Africa. If we just imagine Morocco, Tunisia, Libya and, we hope, Egypt as more open societies and economies, we find that the possibilities for their citizens in terms of freedom and economic progress are a tremendously exciting development in world affairs.

Richard Burden: The first question that the Foreign Secretary was asked from the Government side of the House basically involved urging Hamas to recognise the state of Israel, and if I understood the Foreign Secretary correctly, he broadly agreed with that idea. I think that both sides of the House would have a real problem, whatever individual Palestinian or Israeli political parties did about recognising each other, if there were any doubt about the international community recognising Israel. That being the case, why should there be any doubt about the international community recognising Palestine? Sooner or later a decision will have to be made on the issue at the Security Council. How will the Foreign Secretary take the feeling of the House before Britain makes its decision on that question?

William Hague: The paramount need is to return to negotiations—I stress that. The Palestinian state that the hon. Gentleman and I want to see come securely
	into existence will come about in the end only through successful negotiations, and therefore the difficulties that arise with ideas of UN resolutions at the Security Council or in the General Assembly are the dangers of resolutions that may undermine the prospect of negotiations, rather than buttress them. That is what we have to weigh in the balance, and carrying resolutions that then make it harder to pursue negotiations or are not accompanied by a clear commitment to return to negotiations may not be helpful. That is just one factor that we have to weigh in the balance.
	On parliamentary opinion, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I make as many statements as possible on this subject—I think more in this calendar year than any Foreign Secretary has made in some decades; and, if the business managers can find time for debates on these matters, I would welcome it.

Stewart Jackson: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary’s rejection of the admonitions of some in this House for precipitous recognition of Palestinian statehood. He may know that in December 2008 I raised in an Adjournment debate the incarceration of Gilad Shalit, who has been in captivity since 25 June 2006. Will my right hon. Friend restate the imperative for Hamas to use that gesture as an opportunity to build for the future, to reject violence and terror, and to move towards peace and prosperity under the auspices of the Quartet principles?

William Hague: Yes, I very much agree. In line with my earlier answer to our hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott), that is absolutely right. That gesture is a glimmer of hope, but it is very good news in the individual case of Gilad Shalit. In terms of the overall scene we should not overstate it, as it is a glimmer of hope, but all sides should now seek to build on it.

Louise Ellman: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s focus on the importance of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians as the only way to achieve a viable and lasting Palestinian state alongside Israel, but what steps is he taking to secure the resumption of those negotiations, without conditions, as the Quartet requests?

William Hague: We have made our view very clear, including in discussions at the United Nations General Assembly. For instance, during the General Assembly ministerial week last month, I held direct talks with President Abbas and with the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr Lieberman. At the beginning of that week, our Prime Minister also spoke to the Israeli Prime Minister about the matter, and we have urged all of them to return to negotiations in the spirit that I described in my statement.
	Of course, we work through the European Union as a whole and through the very good work of Baroness Ashton on the matter, and we also influence the work of the Quartet—the EU, the UN, the United States and Russia —whose statement on 23 September provided the framework and timetable for a resumption of negotiations, so we are active on this issue on all diplomatic fronts.

Robert Halfon: I commend my right hon. Friend and, particularly, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon.
	Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on their work over many years to secure the release of Gilad Shalit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that Israel has released more then 1,000 prisoners, many of whom were involved in horrific terrorist atrocities, shows that it is willing to negotiate and to make some moves towards peace?

William Hague: Yes, I do agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, as does the Under-Secretary; we are grateful for that. The release does show such willingness, but it is now important to replicate it in other negotiations.
	In this case, Israel has made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) suggests, a decisive offer to bring about the release of Gilad Shalit; we now need Israel to make decisive offers on a much grander scale in order to bring about a two-state solution. That is what we urge it to do in the coming weeks. It will be necessary for Israel to do so if we are to arrive at that two-state solution, because without that solution Israel will be in a steadily more isolated and dangerous international situation.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Foreign Secretary for the individual efforts that he made with regard to Gilad Shalit; I know that that is greatly appreciated. I also support his comments about the persecution and murder of Coptic Christians and other minorities in Egypt.
	Turning to the cocktail of crises on the African continent, is it not about time that there was an Africa summit led by this nation, with our partners across the world, to address the many-faceted problems and to keep world attention on those problems so that we can help to resolve them and bring freedom, encouragement and business acumen to that continent?

William Hague: There are, in effect, many such summits. The G8 summit at Deauville at the end of May focused absolutely on that, and it was followed up by a meeting of the G8 Finance Ministers early in September and the meeting of G8 Foreign Ministers in New York that I attended on 20 September. That is about much of the western world—the developed world—trying to ensure that it is a magnet for change and for economic and political freedom in north Africa. A total of $38 billion of finance is available multilaterally to these countries. That effort is very much going on. Of course, the African Union also holds its own summits, and we are present and active around them—my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary, in particular. This country has a very strong record in promoting freedom and prosperity in Africa.

Jo Swinson: The positive example of Liberia and the rather more depressing tale of Angola show that the involvement of women in post-conflict negotiations is not just a matter of equality—it is absolutely vital for security and stability. How is the Foreign Secretary using his influence to ensure, at this critical time in the formation of new Governments and institutions in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia, that women are around the table, with full speaking rights, as an essential part of those future successful states?

William Hague: That is a very high priority for the Department for International Development in all the work that it does, and it is an important priority in our Arab Partnership fund. I listed earlier some of the projects that we are undertaking: for instance, to train and assist female candidates for election in Egypt. Of course, we cannot ensure that such things happen in those countries—we are not a sovereign power—but we can transmit the right signals and encouragement all the time, and we do so. The Prime Minister very much did that in his meeting with national transitional council members in Tripoli a few weeks ago. I will be visiting Libya and many other north African countries shortly, and I will return to that subject constantly.

Mark Hendrick: Would not a successful resolution on UN membership for Palestine strengthen the hand of Fatah, whereas at the moment, with the prisoner exchange, Hamas is looking as though it is more successful than Fatah?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman has an important point. It is true that how we act at the United Nations and how we promote negotiations must support the work of the moderate leaders of the Palestinians. I do not think that Israel is going to have better partners than President Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad for reaching peace and a two-state solution. That is why we should not be dismissive of their efforts and what they have brought to the United Nations, with President Abbas’s speech on 23 September. It nevertheless remains the case that a return to negotiations is the only way to bring about what we want. The simple passing of resolutions, if passed in a form that makes the situation worse in some ways—the US Congress has threatened to cut off funding and the Israeli Government have threatened to withhold tax revenues under certain scenarios—would not bring about that negotiated solution. That remains our paramount interest in our approach to these matters.

Dominic Raab: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his comprehensive statement. There are worrying signs in Egypt. Under the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, there has been increasing use of summary justice and emergency powers, as well as the reports of shooting of Coptic Christians. What is Britain doing specifically to facilitate the transition to democracy there? In particular, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is vital that the forthcoming elections are overseen by international monitors?

William Hague: In answer to the early part of my hon. Friend’s question, we are active in particular projects in Egypt, and we are also active diplomatically, in persuasion and pressure where necessary about respect for minorities such as the Copts in Egypt, respect for human rights, and so on. My hon. Friend will have to remind me of the last point in his question.

Dominic Raab: Monitors.

William Hague: Monitors, yes. In the case of Egypt, it is important that the terminology is right. The Egyptians do not like the term monitors, or even observers—I think they would prefer to call such people witnesses—but the concept is the same. I discussed that with the Egyptian
	Foreign Minister last night. Certainly, Egypt is now accepting such witnesses—or monitors, or whatever they are to be called—for the forthcoming elections.

Keith Vaz: I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s initiative in seeking a discussion on Yemen at the Security Council. Does he know why the President of Yemen has changed his mind? He had agreed to go, the Gulf states and he backed it, and now he has changed his mind. Will the Foreign Secretary consider making a visit to Sana’a, as he has before, perhaps with another EU Foreign Minister, to try to enter into a proper discussion on these matters?

William Hague: We will consider any step that helps. The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to read the mind of the President of Yemen. Having met him on my visit in February, I know that that is an extremely difficult thing to do, even when sitting talking to him, let alone watching developments from afar. I do not know whether he has changed his mind or whether he ever decided to give up power; there are different hypotheses about that. One of the constraining factors is the presence of people around him who do not want to give up power, whatever his own intentions. There are indications that that puts back the signing of an agreement and an orderly transition. We will keep on with all our efforts and pursue them in any effective way that we can. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s welcome for our approach at the United Nations.

Bob Blackman: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I have just returned from a trip to Jordan and the west bank. I used the opportunity of a meeting with the Palestinian Authority’s Prime Minister, Mr Fayyad, to call on him to facilitate the release of Gilad Shalit. I was therefore delighted when that action took place the following day. However, I do not claim the credit; I express the delight of everyone in this House that it has finally happened. During the visit, it became evident to me that the level of settlement activity on the west bank is speeding up, and that is obviously of great importance. Will my right hon. Friend therefore make sure that the Palestinians return to negotiations urgently, rather than using their time lobbying members of the Security Council and the United Nations to secure a vote, so that we can get a viable two-state solution?

William Hague: I am pleased that my hon. Friend raised the case of Gilad Shalit; he is well on his way to a Nobel peace prize for the instant result that was achieved on that. Yes, the pace of settlement activity, which is illegal and which is on occupied land, is wrong. It is also one reason why it is an urgent issue, because a two-state solution will become impossible in a few years’ time if it is not arrived at in the near future. That means Palestinians returning to talks, but it also means Israelis returning to them ready to make a decisive offer to Palestinians.

David Winnick: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that very many Palestinians—I would imagine the large majority—believe that the western Governments, including the British Government, are much more on the side of Israel than of Palestine, and that therefore the question of a vote in the United Nations, if there is to be one, is of crucial importance regarding the line that Britain is going to take?

William Hague: We are on the side of a two-state solution. We want a secure Israel living alongside a viable and secure Palestinian state. I do not see us as being on one side or the other. We make no compromises on the security or the legitimacy of Israel. The hon. Gentleman can gather from my remarks today and on many other occasions, and from the way that we have voted on settlements at the Security Council, that we believe in putting Israel under pressure to arrive at a two-state solution. We have done more of that, I have to say, than happened under any previous Government. That is the direction of our policy; it is not a matter of taking sides one way or the other.

Stephen Gilbert: May I turn the House’s attention to today’s written ministerial statement on the arms export regime? I welcome the tightening and strengthening of that regime, but there remain real concerns that British-made matériel is being used to suppress democratic movements, particularly in Bahrain. Will the Foreign Secretary publish the review and tell the House what more he is doing to stop British-made matériel being used to persecute people seeking democratic reform?

William Hague: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for this move. On Bahrain, there is no evidence of British-made equipment being used in that way. He will be aware that we revoked export licences to Bahrain to try to make sure of that for the future. The review points the way to being able to make such decisions at earlier stages if enough is known about a situation. The internal report gives advice to Ministers and contains commercial information, so I do not envisage publishing it, although I have published its conclusions. As I indicated in the written ministerial statement, I am open to taking further measures and to further consideration of the matter.

Denis MacShane: We support the Foreign Secretary when he condemns Gaddafi’s torture in Libya and Bashar Assad’s torture in Syria. Why will he not condemn the al-Khalifa family’s torture in Bahrain? Is he aware that the senior police officers who were suspended for that torture have been reinstated? Women doctors should not be put in prison after a fake trial. If that happened in Burma or Zimbabwe, the Foreign Secretary would be straight out there calling for their release. Instead of welcoming an announcement and attaching great importance to it, will the Foreign Secretary say from the Dispatch Box that these women should be freed this afternoon?

William Hague: I think that I have been very clear in what I have said about that matter. I do not think that the Bahraini Government are in any doubt about our views on these issues; I expressed them forcefully to the Bahraini ambassador last week. They must not miss the opportunity that is there with the report on 30 October. The difference between Bahrain and Libya is that a political process is alive in Bahrain. The only way forward for Bahrain is for that political process to succeed and for an accommodation to be reached between its Shi’a and Sunni communities. That is a different situation from the one that prevailed in Libya six months ago.

Bob Stewart: I lived for three years in Yemen, for three years in Bahrain and also in Jordan. I was always told not to make any comment about the Sunni or Shi’a branches of Islamic religion. May I ask the Foreign Secretary to ensure, as I am sure he is doing, that our diplomats are utterly bipartisan and as neutral as possible in this matter, because it has a knock-on effect elsewhere, for example, dare I say it, in trade?

William Hague: Yes, I assure my hon. Friend that our diplomats are religiously neutral about religion. We support the rights of minorities throughout the world, including the right to freedom of worship. In that, we do not differentiate religions and that should apply all over the world.

Hugh Bayley: I have profound respect for the role of our armed services in Libya. However, we know from experience in Afghanistan and Iraq that the challenges of post-war reconstruction can be as taxing as military operations. Will the Foreign Secretary soon make a written statement to spell out our plans for post-war reconstruction in Libya and for the development of democratic institutions using agencies such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy? Will Britain support the inclusion of Libya in NATO’s Mediterranean dialogue?

William Hague: I will seek every opportunity to keep the House updated on what we are doing. To give a brief answer, I stress that this is a very different situation from Iraq or Afghanistan: there is no serious damage to the civilian infrastructure, it is a Libyan-led effort and there is no occupying army. The hon. Gentleman asks about our plans, but I stress that they are Libya’s plans for the stabilisation of its country. They are not plans for reconstruction, because the children are at school, the shops are open and the traffic is running, as I have seen for myself in Tripoli and Benghazi. We are involved in many ways, some of which I listed in my statement. As matters develop, as the transitional Government come in and as the UN mission expands its work, I would be happy to spell out in more detail in a written statement or in another statement to the House what we will be doing.

Andrew Love: In the past year, the Egyptian economy has shrunk by more than 4%. That is reflected throughout the middle east, demonstrating that the Arab spring started because of economic disadvantage and a lack of economic opportunities. What efforts is the Foreign Secretary making to sponsor a dialogue between the European Union and those African countries? He has mentioned the efforts of the British authorities, but surely the crucial factor will be reaching an EU-wide agreement to support those economies and help them through this difficult period.

William Hague: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. That is why we place such emphasis on the European neighbourhood policy being a bold and ambitious policy that offers closer economic integration to those countries. There was a very good meeting of the EU-Tunisia taskforce on this matter in the past couple of weeks. That needs to be followed up by looking at Egypt. The
	role of the European Union is really in solidifying and expanding the economic links, and I think that that work is going on.

Ian Murray: On a recent visit to Gaza, the United Nations was keen to stress that 800,000 Gazans were living on UN food aid and that 600,000 of those people would receive no food aid at all come 1 January because of a lack of funds. If poverty is a major barrier to peace in the region, what can the Foreign Secretary do to remedy the impending humanitarian disaster?

William Hague: Through the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, we are one of the biggest contributors to the funding that goes to Gaza. Wherever such problems arise, we encourage other nations to join in with such funding. We will encourage other nations to do that, as indeed we have been doing. We are on to that.

Jonathan Ashworth: What estimate has the Foreign Office made of the number of Libyan students currently studying in the UK? There are a number in Leicester who have made representations to me. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on what arrangements are in place to ensure that those students continue to get funding from Libya so that they can continue in their studies?

William Hague: That was one of the major issues when we ordered the closure of the embassy of the old regime. From memory, there were about 8,000 Libyan students in the UK at that stage. Of course, that varies from one academic year to another. We were concerned at that time to ensure that the financial arrangements for those students were robust. Certainly, enough money was set aside for their support to be continued. We will monitor how that situation develops. The new Government of Libya have access to substantial financial resources and we will look to them to continue the support that has been given in the past.

Gavin Shuker: I commend the work of the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on religious freedom in the middle east and north Africa, and the specific action that the Foreign Secretary took last night with regard to Egypt. Will he say a little more about his general approach to religious freedom across the region, which is experiencing much change at the moment?

William Hague: The whole House believes in such freedom, in the rule of law and in places of worship being respected. The Foreign Minister of Egypt assured me last night that the violence with the Copts, in which 36 people were killed, is being investigated through an inquiry and that legislation concerning places of worship will be brought forward in Egypt. I hope that that will help to guarantee, at least in law, the sanctity of those places. Beyond that, there is a wider argument to be won across the middle east and north Africa. British and other western voices should be strong in that argument,
	pointing out the great advantages to those societies of diversity and respect for freedom of religion. Amid all the horrors of the Syrian regime, one good thing in recent years has been the right of minorities to practise their religion in Syria. We hope that that will continue.

Point of Order

Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Along with other right hon. and hon. Members, I received today a letter from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), saying that in future all his communications with us would be by e-mail. I do not challenge the sincerity of his desire not to spend an evening signing letters, or to be quicker or save a bit of paper, but I really do think it is a worry. When we send letters on to constituents, they should not be PDFs or bits of e-mails; they should be letters. They represent an important relationship between the state and the citizen. I am not sure, either, of the legal authority of letters that have not been physically signed. I do not want to add work for Ministers—believe me, I know what it is like—but will you look at the matter with your colleagues, perhaps including the Leader of the House, who is kindly in his seat, and work out whether it is a good initiative for any Minister to take?

Lindsay Hoyle: That was discussed at Speaker’s conference this morning, and Mr Speaker is certainly uneasy about it. Concern was expressed by the other Deputy Speakers, as well. I can say that Mr Speaker will investigate the matter.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	[32nd( )Allotted Day]

Procedure Committee Reports

Lindsay Hoyle: Mr Speaker has selected the amendment to the motion on hand-held electronic devices in the Chamber. With the leave of the House, we will take the first four motions together.

Greg Knight: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the Third Report from the Procedure Committee on Use of hand-held electronic devices in the Chamber and committees, HC 889; and resolves that hand-held devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum, that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this we will consider the following:
	Amendment (a) to motion 1, leave out from 'used in the Chamber’ to end and add
	‘to a minimal extent, silently and with decorum, to receive and send urgent messages, as a substitute for paper speaking notes and to refer to documents for use in debates, but not for any other purpose.’.
	Motion on Select Committee Amendments—
	That this House approves the recommendations relating to select committee amendments contained in paragraph 21 of the Second Report from the Procedure Committee on Improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny, HC 800.
	Motion on Explanatory Statements on Amendments to Bills—
	That this House notes the recommendations relating to explanatory statements on amendments to bills contained in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Second Report from the Procedure Committee on Improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny, HC 800; and invites the Leader of the House and the Procedure Committee to put in place a pilot scheme to implement these proposals in respect of one or more bills before the end of the next session.
	Motion on Written Parliamentary Questions—
	That this House approves the recommendations relating to written parliamentary questions contained in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the Second Report from the Procedure Committee on Improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny, HC 800.

Greg Knight: May I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for providing time this afternoon for these debates? I have to say that I do not think it should be the Committee’s responsibility to provide this time. These are House matters relating to the procedure of the House, and I think that in future the Government should provide time for debates such as this.
	All the motions arise out of reports by the Procedure Committee. For the benefit of Members I should say that House of Commons papers 800, 889 and 1104 are relevant. I thank the members of the Committee for their hard work, which goes largely unnoticed. We frequently disagree, but it is part of our strength that we have a Committee comprised of a wide range of Members from all parts of the House.
	I wish to start by referring to the first motion, on hand-held electronic devices in the Chamber. The House last revised its rules on the use of such devices in the Chamber and in Committee in October 2007, and of course since that time the use of technology and the introduction of smaller and less obtrusive devices have developed rapidly, as has new software. I therefore believe we need to re-examine our rules.
	I remember when I first purchased a mobile phone—I think I was one of the first people in the country to do so. I had to carry it with a shoulder strap, and the battery was larger than a large, bound volume of Hansard. It was a device that weighed about eight pounds, and it would have been totally impractical to bring it into the Chamber. Yet we now see devices that have the power of computers but are capable of being held in the palm of the hand. It is therefore right that we look again at our rules, and I hope that the House will agree to the motion before us.
	As I said, the current rules go back to 2007. They permit the use of mobile phones and other hand-held devices to keep up to date with e-mails, provided that they cause no disturbance. Since 2007, the availability and use of new technology both within and outside Parliament has increased dramatically. There are many new devices, including portable tablet computers such as iPads, and smartphones, that did not exist when the Modernisation Committee drew up the report that led to our 2007 resolution. It was against that background that Mr Speaker and the Administration Committee asked the Procedure Committee to look into the matter and see whether it felt the rules should be changed. We gladly agreed to consider the matter further.
	We have examined what happens in other parts of the world, and we were particularly impressed with the new and simple rule that has been introduced in the United States of America. There, the House of Representatives had previously banned the use of mobile phones and computers on the floor of the House, but on 5 January this year the new Congress agreed to a revised rule stating:
	“A person on the floor of the House may not…use a mobile electronic device that impairs decorum.”
	That seems to us straightforward and simple. It is designed to give discretion to the Speaker, or whoever else is in the Chair, to decide what sort of technology can be used by referring to how the device is used rather than what it is used for or what type of device it is, as was the case in the past.

James Gray: I want to pick up my right hon. Friend on one very small point. He keeps talking about “us”, but I know he will acknowledge that the Procedure Committee was split on this matter, and that four of its members have signed the amendment.

Greg Knight: The Procedure Committee’s report upon which the debate is based was passed by a majority of Committee members voting on it. I am happy to acknowledge straight away that my hon. Friend has been an opponent of it from the beginning and voted against it in the Committee. I accept that this is a matter of fine judgment. I do not think it is one of those issues about which one can clearly say that the mainstream view is right and any other view is wrong, but I hope
	during my remarks to convince the House that, on balance, it should follow the majority view of the Committee.
	I accept that there is a respectable argument that electronic devices should not be used at all in the Chamber or in Committees. It could be said that Members present at any time should be attending to the debate in hand and not undertaking any other activities, and that the use of electronic devices, even silently, could distract others. However, there are arguments the other way. I believe that the main arguments, although not all the arguments, in favour of permitting the use of electronic devices are pragmatic. The Modernisation Committee, to which I referred earlier, recommended the lifting of the restriction on hand-held devices, at least as far as e-mails were concerned, because of the possibility that allowing multi-tasking in the Chamber might increase the number of Members present in a debate. In a report specifically aimed at revitalising the Chamber, it argued:
	“Members might be more willing to spend time in the Chamber listening to debates or waiting to be called if they were able to do other work at the same time, either dealing with correspondence or perhaps even using a handheld computer or laptop to deal with e-mails.”

Claire Perry: Does my right hon. Friend accept my view that given that women are notoriously good at multi-tasking, it is possible for female Members to listen to debates, attend to e-mails and even think about what they are going to feed their children that evening?

Greg Knight: I hope that some male Members are also capable of multi-tasking, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support.

Kevin Brennan: In considering how to refresh and enliven the Chamber, did the Committee consider ensuring that the Chamber has wireless reception so that we can communicate more quickly using our electronic devices?

Greg Knight: I believe that in such matters it is better to take one step at a time, but we may return to that, subject to the House’s conclusion today.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Greg Knight: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).

Therese Coffey: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Lady has just walked in. It is a little discourteous, given that we have already started, for her to seek to intervene. She ought to allow others to do so first. It is up to Mr Knight whether he takes the intervention, but Members ought to listen for a bit before jumping in. Mr Knight, do you wish to take the intervention?

Greg Knight: I defer to your judgment, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you were facing in that direction and I was not. If that is you view, I am happy to give way to someone else.

Julian Huppert: The right hon. Gentleman is laying out a clear case. Does he accept that one of the other functions of using hand-held devices in the Chamber is to let the general public know what is happening? Our procedures are not always clear to the casual observer. Many people are interested in what we do, and Twitter, for example, is a good way of letting them know what is going on.

Greg Knight: There is certainly a strong argument for saying that we should not rule out of order anything that increases public interest in the Chamber and our Committees. I agree, therefore, with the hon. Gentleman.
	There is also the question of consistency. Written notes as well as books, newspapers, letters and research papers may be used as an aide-mémoire. There is no difference between allowing a Member to consult his or her speaking notes or necessary documents in hard copy and allowing them to use an electronic device. Indeed, as more material is published in electronic format only, it might soon be the only way in which some documents can be consulted, particularly if the House of Commons Commission pursues its quest for further savings and decrees that some of our publications, which currently we enjoy in paper format, should be available in electronic format only.

Kerry McCarthy: I think that I inadvertently became the first Member to use an iPad for a speech in the Chamber a few months ago, mainly because I thought that we had been told that we now could—I picked that up from Twitter, so perhaps that is one of its perils. I was one of the last to be called in the debate and, whereas in other circumstances MPs might stick grimly to a pre-written speech, the fact that I could listen to Members and amend my speech as I went along meant that it was more of a response to the debate, as opposed to my coming along to say my five or 10 minutes’ worth.

Greg Knight: That is a very good point. What is the difference between the written word on a note made contemporaneously and referring to an iPad or other tablet device using the same process?

Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some of us think that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) proposes a more appropriate way of proceeding? It looks pretty bad if Members spend all their time looking at papers and other things that have nothing to do with a debate, but they look even less connected if they spend all their time playing with bits of electronic machinery. If we are here, we should be taking part in the debate, and the administration of our lives should happen outside.

Greg Knight: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. If I may, I shall return to his point when I address the terms of the amendment.

Luciana Berger: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is wrong if Members decide to have a little snooze? The motion states that we should behave with decorum. Is that not the point? We should use electronic devices sparingly, but the option to use them should be available.

Greg Knight: That is the essence of my argument—in whatever we do, we should behave with decorum. There is no duty on any of us to listen to the Member who has the Floor. The duty on us is to behave with decorum and not to be out of order, which is why it is appropriate to allow the use of these devices. In many instances, Members wander into the Chamber early and wait for a debate to start, and are not there to participate in the debate under way. What is wrong with Members discreetly checking whether they have messages, e-mails or other documents to review?

Bob Stewart: As a lowly member of the animal life in the House, I have previously had to wait six hours to be called right at the end of a debate. As my right hon. Friend suggests, those six hours would be much more fruitful if I could do some work while waiting to be called—owing to my low position in the rankings of the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman does very well when he speaks. Perhaps that is why.

Greg Knight: I agree with my hon. Friend, although I have never thought of him as lowly.
	The issue is one of fine judgment. I have reservations about basing the rules on what activities are permissible or forbidden. First, the inadequacy of the reference in our current rules—to checking e-mails and nothing else—shows how quickly the range of applications on hand-held devices could outstrip any attempt to define what is acceptable. Secondly, it is difficult, if not impossible, proportionately to police activity on an electronic device. Do we really want the Speaker frequently to have to rule on whether a Member had been using a device for a proper purpose following a complaint from another Member? It is illogical to prevent Members from using electronic devices when they could use paper speaking notes and documents or other research. Why should we prevent Members from checking facts on the internet in the Chamber?

Claire Perry: I was told as a new Member of Parliament by those who shall remain nameless, “Never mind whether your facts are accurate. Just say them anyway.” Of course, I have never followed that advice, but there are many advantages of instantaneously being able to google an article or, for example, to send a message to the chief constable of Wiltshire police in order to deal with damning statistics being provided by Opposition Members. That is incredibly helpful to us in doing our job of holding the Government to account and being good parliamentarians.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ministers have had this facility for years. Officials in the Box have regularly passed notes to Ministers so that the latter can gauge the accuracy of points being made. Why should this be denied to the rest of us, who could obtain such information electronically? The Procedure Committee therefore concluded by a majority that Members should be allowed to use electronic hand-held devices for any purpose when in the Chamber while not speaking and that the current ban on the use of such devices as an aide-mémoire when we are speaking in a debate should be ended. I understand that even Hansard is now willing to accept notes for speeches electronically, rather than
	asking right hon. and hon. Members for a hard-copy of their speech. However, we all hope that such devices, if allowed to be used, will be used with discretion and due regard to decorum.
	The amendment that I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire will seek to move shortly would allow hand-held electronic devices to be used in the Chamber only to receive and send urgent messages as a substitute for paper speaking notes and to refer to documents in debates. There would be no right to search for information or to check e-mails while sitting in the Chamber.

James Gray: I cannot understand how my right hon. Friend has interpreted my amendment to mean that there should be no searching for information. Of course, there should be. The point of the amendment is that the devices could be used for any purpose connected to the debate, but for no other purposes. Of course, under the wording of my amendment as I understand it, they could be used to search for information.

Chris Bryant: It does not say that.

James Gray: It does not have to.

Greg Knight: The amendment removes from the motion any mention of using such devices in Committee, which is extremely unfortunate because Select Committees already circulate non-confidential papers electronically. Indeed, I understand that the Administration Committee is piloting the use of electronic devices for the provision of some House papers. However, if my hon. Friend’s amendment is passed, the Chairman of the Committee alone will determine whether an electronic device may be used. The amendment provides no guarantee of consistency in Committee use.

James Gray: Perhaps the drafting of the amendment is not all that it could be—had my right hon. Friend drafted it, it might be better—but if the procedure in the Chamber were changed in the way I have described, I presume that precisely the same would apply in Committee. I acknowledge that the amendment does not say that, but that is the clear implication.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is now telling the House what he wished his amendment would do rather than what it does. I could not recommend anyone to vote for such an amendment. He drafted it, and it takes out all references to the use of electronic devices in Committee. In my view, Members should have certainty in what they can and cannot do in Committee. Imagine a Member attending a Committee with their notes on an electronic device and the Chairman saying, “Well, in my Committee we don’t use these devices.” That Member would be left high and dry.

Chris Bryant: If we were to presume, in the way the right hon. Gentleman does, that Chamber practice was consistent with Committee practice, the rule allowing hon. Gentlemen to remove their jackets in Committee, which does not apply in the Chamber, would presumably lapse.

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.

John Hemming: The amendment has been badly drafted, but there is another aspect to it. Currently Members have to sit in the corridor to use laptops; if the amendment is passed, they will have to stay in the corridor and will not be allowed in the Committee Room. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Greg Knight: I do indeed. I am against the amendment for reasons of consistency. If Members can send messages between themselves by paper, they should be allowed to do so with electronic devices. Indeed, if a member of a Committee wishes to pass a message to a member on the other side of the room, it might be less disruptive to use an electronic device, rather than leaving his or her chair, because sending a paper message would mean going to the side of the room. As for enforcing the rules, it would be difficult for the Chair to determine during proceedings whether a Member was using an electronic device to send or receive urgent messages. Who is to determine whether the messages that I view are urgent? Surely that is a matter for me to determine, not the Chair. The Chair would therefore be expected to rule on what is an urgent message.

John Hemming: Is not the real challenge for anyone receiving a message to know whether it is urgent before they have received it?

Greg Knight: That is a fair point. We have to view our messages before we know whether they are urgent.

Roger Gale: rose—

Greg Knight: Although I am still halfway through my explanation of why the House should not support the amendment, I feel that I should give way to my hon. Friend.

Roger Gale: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. I would like to clarify something with him, because it is quite clear that he has not served on a Standing Committee for rather a long time. The Chairman of Ways and Means, in his courtesy and wisdom, allows members of the Chairmen’s Panel, of which I happen to be one, a great deal of leeway in determining how we run our Committees in the interests of good order and progress of business. Let me assure my right hon. Friend that in any Committee I am chairing Members are under no illusions whatever about whether they are allowed to use electronic devices, which they are not, whether they are allowed to bring tea or coffee into the room, which they are not, or whether they are allowed to take their jackets off, which they are. I have never yet had a problem with any Member being in any doubt whatever.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he thereby underlines my case for passing the motion unamended. He has made it quite clear that if Committees were exempt, he would not allow the use of electronic devices, whatever view we took in the House. If we wish to see the use of electronic devices, I would invite the House to reject the amendment and pass the motion unamended.
	The point about participation is not one that we can ignore, either. There is an argument that Members are more likely to attend debates if they are able to do other
	work while they are waiting to be called. That is why I believe we should allow the use of electronic devices in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
	The remaining motions on the Order Paper, which you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have indicated we may debate together, contain three sets of recommendations that share a common aim: improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny. First, the Procedure Committee was asked by the Liaison Committee to consider whether Select Committees should be allowed to table amendments to Bills and motions being taken on the Floor of the House. We agreed to look at this and think there is a case for their being able to do so, subject to certain safeguards. Any amendment tagged as a Select Committee amendment should be agreed unanimously at a quorate meeting of the Committee, and notice should be given to all its members that such amendments will be proposed for consideration at a forthcoming meeting. We have also suggested that, subject to the established conventions on selection for debate and decision, the Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means might look favourably on a Select Committee seeking a separate Division on its amendments where business is programmed.

Alan Beith: Let me say on behalf of the Liaison Committee that we are grateful that the Procedure Committee has not only accepted our proposal, which originated from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but refined it, building in helpful safeguards. Is my right hon. Friend as astonished as I am that the Government appear to have it in mind to use the payroll vote to prevent what we propose from happening?

Greg Knight: I hope that the Government will have a change of heart even as this debate progresses, but I rather share the right hon. Gentleman’s feeling that that may not come about.
	Secondly, we also recommended that we should conduct a further experiment in this Parliament whereby Members and Opposition spokesmen are encouraged to attach explanatory statements to amendments and the Government provide explanatory statements clarifying the origin of amendments and new clauses proposed on Report.
	Thirdly, our Committee recognises that although written parliamentary questions are a vital part of parliamentary scrutiny, they impose a significant cost on the public purse. Although we felt it would be wrong to consider imposing restrictions on Members’ ability to table questions in person, we think we should have a three-month trial whereby Members are restricted to a quota of five written questions a day submitted electronically.
	To assist Members, we also recommended that the Government should deliver all answers to parliamentary questions to the Member concerned by e-mail at the same time as the answer is delivered to the House, which is vital. I do not know whether Members know this, but answers are delivered by a person who literally walks round the building. He takes the answer into Hansard and then to the Press Gallery, and then he puts it on the notice board for the Member. I asked a question recently, and in my case I was the last point in the journey. The House business was collapsing and I was on a train when I had a phone call from a journalist wanting to know my view on the answer to my question, which my
	office had not received. On checking the board, I found that it had still not got there. I therefore do not think it acceptable for Members to be the last in the queue when receiving answers to their questions. That is why we feel that there ought to be a system in place whereby Members always receive an electronic reply immediately the answer is available.

Jo Swinson: I warmly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee on an excellent set of reports and proposals on explanatory statements and so on. However, I want to press him slightly on the restriction on written questions that are only e-tabled, which seems to go against the arguments for consistency that have been marshalled for electronic devices. Surely a question should be treated the same whether it is tabled via the internet, by post or in person. Although we might need to look at a quota system, I cannot quite understand why electronically tabled questions need to be a special case, so that there is a quota for them but not for others.

Greg Knight: If I may, I will come back to that point in a moment. I want to deal completely with Select Committee amendments first, but I will return to the hon. Lady’s point and, if she is not satisfied, I invite her to intervene on me again.
	The Procedure Committee was invited by the Liaison Committee to look at the possibility of a tabling system that would enable Select Committees to table their own amendments. The current practice is that amendments agreed by a Select Committee may be tabled only in the names of individual Members, which makes it difficult to distinguish Committee amendments from those tabled by the same members of the Committee acting as individuals. After consulting interested parties, the Procedure Committee published a report recommending that the practice be changed to allow Select Committees to table amendments to Bills and motions in the name of the Chair, with a tag line indicating the name of the appropriate Select Committee. The advantage of that practice would be that it would offer clarity to the House and to individual Members, and enable anyone reading an amendment paper to see that an amendment had originated in a Select Committee. It was also felt that it would contribute to the effectiveness of Select Committees.
	We recognised, however, that there could be disadvantages, as individual members of a Select Committee might disagree with a proposed amendment, either at the time of its adoption by the Committee or afterwards. To counter that, the Procedure Committee recommended that stringent safeguards be built into the process whereby Committees agreed amendments that carried the special status of Select Committee amendments. We suggested that such amendments would have to be formally agreed, without Division, by a quorate meeting of the Committee. That is a more rigorous requirement than that for Select Committee reports, which can be agreed by a simple majority.
	The Committee rejected the idea that Select Committee amendments should be guaranteed debate, because of the constraints of programming, but we supported the adoption of a convention that the Chair should grant a Division when one is sought. Unfortunately, as the
	Chairman of the Liaison Committee has said, the Government have indicated that they oppose this innovation, and I understand that they continue to oppose such a modest, sensible move today. Indeed, I have seen the Patronage Secretary buzzing round the House, rather like a wasp, discussing this matter. I therefore suspect that there could be a Government payroll Whip on this Liaison Committee suggestion.
	The Government object to the proposal because they feel that it would be wrong for an amendment to be marked as having the support of a Select Committee if some of the Committee’s members might be in disagreement. We have tried to address that difficulty by recommending stringent conditions that would have to be met before a Select Committee amendment could be tabled as such. They include the condition that notice must be given before the Committee could agree the amendment. The Government say, however, that it would still be possible under the new arrangement for any two members of an 11-member Committee to approve an amendment on behalf of the whole Committee, as the quorum is only three and the Chair has a casting vote. That is technically correct, but I would suggest that the requirement for notice would make it most unlikely—or, in practice, impossible—that that could happen against the wishes of a majority of active members of a Committee.

Chris Bryant: With due respect, I do not think that either the right hon. Gentleman or the Government are correct in what they say. In this House, unlike the House of Lords, the Chair of a Committee has a vote only when there is an equality of voices.

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. That makes my argument even stronger and the Government’s case even weaker, and I am grateful for his intervention.
	Our proposal is merely intended to enhance the visibility of Select Committee issues, without in any way diminishing the position of individual members in voting for or against amendments on the Floor. This matter was not initially on our agenda, but the Liaison Committee asked us to look at it. We have done so, and this is our conclusion. I therefore hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will reflect on their opposition to it, which I feel is misplaced. We have given our view, and whether the proposal now proceeds further is a matter for the whole House.
	I see the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) in her place. She was one of the Members who supported the idea of explanatory statements, which is the subject of one of the other motions on the Order Paper today. The House has conducted a series of experiments with explanatory statements, and the Procedure Committee has assessed them. We decided that the overall effect was inconclusive, but it was put to us that carrying out a further experiment in a new Parliament—namely, this one—could be worth while, and that it would also be worth pursuing the experiment during the Report stage of a Bill. That is what we have decided to recommend to the House, and we are pleased to note that, in a debate Westminster Hall on 3 February this year, which the hon. Lady attended, there was complete consensus that it would benefit not only Members but those outside the House to have an accompanying explanation of what an amendment or new clause was designed to do.
	I am rather more hopeful about this proposal, because the Deputy Leader of the House attended that debate and—it was a rare situation indeed—offered Government support for the measure. He said:
	“Regarding explanations for amendments, we had the experiment in Committee and I am certainly happy, as far as the Government are concerned, for that experiment to proceed. Perhaps we ought to look at having such explanations on Report, too.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2011; Vol. 522, c. 384WH.]
	I wholeheartedly agree with him, and I am glad that, on this issue, we are as one. I hope that he will confirm today that he now thinks it appropriate for us to trial the explanatory notes again in this Session and the next one. It would then be a matter for the House to decide in due course whether the facility was to be made permanent.
	On the question of having a three-month trial quota for questions tabled electronically, the concern arose from evidence—mainly informal—from the Table Office. It found, when questioning the intended scope of some questions tabled electronically in Members’ names, that some Members appeared to know nothing about the questions and registered surprise that they had been tabled in their name. The Procedure Committee took the view that, in some cases, research assistants might be using the electronic procedure to table questions without the express authority of those for whom they work.
	Questions are a proceeding in Parliament and should not be submitted without the express and explicit authority of a Member of Parliament. As the electronic submission method could be used without the Member’s knowledge, we decided, in this area only, to limit the number of questions to five in a three-month period to see what the effect would be. We are not recommending any restriction on the number of questions that a Member may take into the Table Office personally. This is a modest recommendation, and we hope that it will lead to Members being fully aware that a question is being submitted in their name.

Julian Huppert: Would an alternative be to encourage the use of electronic submissions and to introduce a system whereby, once a question had been received, it was automatically sent to the Member by e-mail? It would then be very hard for a rogue researcher to table questions without being noticed.

Greg Knight: That is a possibility, but we felt that, in the first instance, this three-month trial might lead to a small drop in the number of questions that a Member might deem worth asking. If Government Departments had smaller postbags to deal with, it could lead to better and quicker answers. We think that that is worth an experiment, but of course there are other options that we could look at. Indeed, as it is just an experiment, I would be quite happy to reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said, should this motion proceed today.

Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend is being gentle and courteous, but I think it is time he took the gloves off. There is a very real problem of parliamentary processes being manipulated by others who are not MPs—lobbying bodies, researchers and other parties associated with MPs. The process is quite clearly being abused, and it is time it was brought under control.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is a modest way of putting a check on the number of written questions going in and ensuring that in each case the Member is fully aware of what is being tabled in his or her name.
	I have now laid my Committee’s recommendations before the House. I believe that they are all balanced, fair, proportionate and likely to assist Members in the performance of their duties. I commend them to the House—unamended.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. A 10-minute rule for Back-Bench speeches now comes into force. Will Members try not to use the maximum time and to cut down on interventions? The next debate is greatly oversubscribed. I understand that this debate is important, but people outside might not understand why we wanted to spend more time on hand-held devices than on high-speed rail.

Luciana Berger: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in robust support of the main motion and strongly against the amendment. The main motion seeks to allow Members to use hand-held devices in a way that does not impair decorum. We are all adults, and we are all mindful of how we are viewed in the eyes of the public and of the importance of being respectful to each other. It is therefore right that we use our phones and our tablets with discretion. It is also correct that laptops should be banned—they conceal people’s faces and make a noise—and it is right that any smartphone or tablet should be in silent mode when used. It is always regrettable and often embarrassing when a colleague’s phone beeps or rings in the Chamber.
	I cannot support an amendment that allows Members to receive and send only urgent messages. According to an e-mail that explained this amendment, the intention behind using the term “urgent messages” is to ban tweeting, among other things, from the Chamber. Twitter started five years ago and now has more than 100 million active users. More than 300 MPs use Twitter. It allows us, in a bite-sized 140-character nugget, to talk to people outside this place. While it is not a replacement for traditional forms of communication, it is a very useful way to connect with the communities we were elected to represent.

Tracey Crouch: I am a user of Twitter myself. One of its advantages is that messages have to be condensed into 140 characters to communicate with the outside world. Does the hon. Lady agree that we could learn from that, and try to condense more of our contributions to 140 characters?

Luciana Berger: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. That point has been made by many people engaged in the discussion about whether we should be able to continue using Twitter from the Chamber. I shall go on to refer to some of those contributions.
	Many of us have a function whereby our tweets are listed on our websites for people to read, particularly for those who do not access the main Twitter website.
	Some MPs have been lambasted for using Twitter solely to publish press releases or to state what they are doing. Others use it to engage in debate. A conversation on a topic can unfold on Twitter via a hashtag. I started the hashtag #keeptweeting to initiate an online discussion and identify what the public thought about tweeting in the Chamber. I was careful to ask what people thought about using Twitter in this place, not outside it.
	The fact that the amendment has been tabled at all has provoked anger from some. For example, @RichSwitch said:
	“No wonder people think Politicians are out of touch”.
	There were many tweets offering reasons why Chamber tweeting should continue. I will not read them all, but I have picked a few relating to a number of themes. Some see it as a means of engagement. For example, @LeamingtonSBC said:
	“Surely anything which widens public participation in the democratic process is a good thing!”
	Similarly, @NHConsortium said:
	“Parliament already seen as cut off & static, don’t amputate it further.”
	Others shared why Twitter was important to them in understanding what is going on. Thus @maggieannehayes admitted that
	“parliament can be such an alien place. MPs tweeting enables us, the voters, to get a sense of what’s happening”.

James Gray: Does the hon. Lady agree with me that she has taken a somewhat self-selecting sample? She has asked the twitterers whether or not they like twittering. I would have thought that they probably would do.

Luciana Berger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I shall come on to the responses of people who thought that we should not continue tweeting. I have a selection here. To continue, @PercyBlakeney63 said, “Citizens deserve transparency”, while @Daisydumble said, “Censorship of MPs now”.

Claire Perry: Does the hon. Lady agree that tweeting helps MPs to stay informed, in touch and accountable to their constituents, and that to ban it would be an inexplicable step back in time? That is 138 characters.

Luciana Berger: I thank the hon. Lady for her succinct, pithy and tweetable intervention of 138 characters, and I wholeheartedly agree with everything she said.
	All too often we are accused of being inward-facing. The public say that we are out of touch and inaccessible. Twitter allows us to make politics relevant, and makes us as individuals accessible.

Kerry McCarthy: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber when we discussed whether we should able to discuss whether the UK Youth Parliament should be allowed to sit here on a Friday for the second year running. It was a debate on whether to have a debate on that subject. Many MPs were here into the early hours of the morning. It was important that we could tweet and explain to people, particularly young people, what on earth this charade they were watching on the BBC Parliament channel was all about. Many
	young people wanted to know what we were talking about. I think that was the best use of Twitter in the Chamber that I have encountered so far. I think people valued the fact that their MPs were prepared to explain to them what was going on.

Luciana Berger: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and wholeheartedly agree with everything she said. That was a good example of something embarrassing—the prospect of not allowing the Youth Parliament to sit in this place. We debated it for many arduous hours and came to the right decision in the end. The fact that we were able to communicate with the public, particularly with those young people who wanted the opportunity to come here, was a fantastic use of Twitter. Twitter also enables us to offer an immediate reaction to a debate, to signal when we are going to speak—as I did just before I began my speech—and to inform our constituents how we are voting.

Julian Huppert: I have the great honour, I believe, of having been the first of all current MPs to join Twitter. It has been useful. [Interruption.] I was not an MP at the time I joined; I do not claim that. I, too, have received a number of comments about this debate. A number of people said that they had become interested in politics as a result of following Twitter and receiving tweets from myself, the hon. Lady and others. There are also people who actively tune into debates because they know what is happening; they can quickly understand what is being debated in this place. The TV and online audience for Parliament goes up because of Twitter. Another point is that deaf people have no better way of following a debate in this Chamber as it happens.

Luciana Berger: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who makes two points on which I shall elaborate in a few moments. As I said, I believe that Twitter, for the reasons I outlined, allows our constituents to hold us to account better.
	A number of Members have said that if the public want to know what is going on, they should watch our proceedings on television. However, as @Scarletstand said, people “can’t all watch” it “on TV”. Not everyone has access to a television or a computer for internet TV, although they may have internet access to sites like Twitter on their mobile phones. It also less likely that the public would choose to watch the Parliament channel. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) expressed in an earlier intervention his worry about what people might think as they watched us on television, but according to BARB—the Broadcasters Audience Research Board—the average weekly viewing per person of BBC Parliament is just one minute.

Kevin Brennan: That much?

Luciana Berger: That much. I think it is when they flick through to get to another channel. As @Scarletstand went on to say, tweeting from the Chamber
	“helps voters gauge mood & tone”.

Simon Hart: Is the hon. Lady aware of any evidence relating to MPs like me who do not tweet? Is there any evidence
	to suggest that our constituents are less satisfied with us than other constituents are satisfied with their MPs who do tweet?

Luciana Berger: I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that constituents would be less happy with their MPs if they did not tweet. I am saying, as I have said before, only that Twitter enables us to reach out to a wider audience. It should not be a replacement for traditional forms of communication, but for younger constituents and people who go on to our websites and want to see some pithy little updates, Twitter provides that opportunity. As I said earlier, it also enables people to gauge the mood and tone of this place, which they might not be able to pick up by watching television.
	One aspect that had not occurred to me until I opened up the debate on Twitter is the fact that, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) mentioned a moment ago, it has positive benefits for people with hearing impairments. The BBC parliamentary channel is not subject to the BBC’s 100% subtitle commitment, and pledges just 800 hours of subtitled content a year. As @TimRegency observed, Twitter is one really useful way for deaf people to get involved in political discussion and debate.
	Some objections were expressed. @JimSpin said that we could not concentrate and tweet. However, I would argue that we can, and that tweeting is equivalent to sending a text message, which takes just seconds. I agree with the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) that both women and men are able to multitask.
	@Donna_Smiley asked:
	“Can surgeons tweet from operating theatres, policemen in a raid, jurors from courtrooms, teachers from classrooms?”
	I would argue that the audience for each of those individuals—the surgeon, the teacher and the juror—is immediately in front of him or her, whereas we are accountable to our constituents, who are a long way from this place.
	Do not get me wrong. I am not advocating constant tweeting, or tweeting while we are talking. As @TrojanFanl969 said,
	“mp’s to use common sense. 50 tweets an hr bit silly, but selective use v good, engaging with electorate etc.”
	Just two countries in Europe have banned tweeting, and I do not think that we should join them. @RichSwitch said:
	“A ban on Tweeting in the chamber would be unconstitutional”.
	I am not sure that I agree, but I do believe that—as he also says—it would be
	“anti-democratic, regressive and bemusing to the public”.

Alan Haselhurst: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am not speaking to a brief from the Administration Committee, and I am pleased that the written evidence submitted on behalf of the Committee—whose conclusions were unanimous—has been printed along with the report that is before the House today. What I am about to say will contain my own emphasis, in the context of the Procedure Committee’s report and its recommendations to the House, and I am aware that it will give me a good chance of becoming the leading candidate for the “dinosaur of the year” award.
	I think that we should appreciate the extraordinary reputation that the House has throughout the world. We should be humbled by the fact that whatever Parliament or the Government may say or decide, the institution itself is admired and respected enormously. People come from everywhere to see how we proceed as a legislature. I think that the requirement for us to stand on our own feet and use our own wits produces a quality of debate that has given all British parliamentarians a fairly high reputation around the world.
	We should bear that in mind, because I believe that if it appears that we are being prompted from outside—which is entirely possible if hand-held devices are produced in the House—our reputation will decline. I am not targeting the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), but I believe that such devices will accentuate the tendency to read speeches, and the reading of speeches, which is discouraged by “Erskine May”, does have a dampening effect on debate. The hon. Lady made a very gracious contribution, and I repeat that I am merely making a general point.
	Once, when I was in the Chair, I had to listen to a speech from an hon. Member who is no longer in the House. I thought that it had a certain ring about it, and indeed I discovered that it was a submission by that hon. Member to a Select Committee that was being read to the House. I was able to follow it word for word. I think there are certain dangers in going down that particular road.

Caroline Lucas: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many speeches that are based on closely written notes are a great deal more interesting than some of the more rambling contributions of other Members? I mention no names.

Alan Haselhurst: I accept that the quality of our contributions may vary, and I certainly make no claims for what I have said in that regard. As the hon. Lady knows, I have experienced 13 years with no practice of speaking in the House, so I am a bit of a newcomer myself.
	I sometimes wonder, though, what would happen when a Member was using an electronic tablet, for example, and the power went off. That Member could be caught in a very difficult situation. It is ironic, is it not, that we are discussing this matter at a time when one of the best-known devices, owned by many Members, is having problems in achieving the purposes that some Members have extolled today.
	I know that I shall not be able to stem a tide of what is, I guess, modernity, but there can be no doubt that it is transformational, and that it does not necessarily accord with the style of debate that we have used in the House over the years. Twice, when I had the privilege of sitting in the Chair, I had to restrain hon. Members from making telephone calls from the Chamber simply because the device was there. No one is suggesting that telephone calls should be made, but the fact that the device is there and can be used for that purpose does, I am afraid, lead to infringements. I also noticed that the Whips on duty on the Government and Opposition Benches were often distracted by the use of their devices and were not keeping pace with business, which created a dysfunction with the Chair.
	Such devices are very compelling when they are in someone’s hand. It is not a question of what they might do, which is what is being recommended, but a question of what they can be used for. We know that people’s eyes tend to be drawn to a television screen when they visit someone else’s house. Similarly, the press of a button on a hand-held device can easily enable someone to view images from outside the House that command his or her interest. People know of my interest in cricket. How convenient it would be to ascertain what was happening in the Test match at that very moment! As the bowler was walking back to the end of his run, I should be able to look up and appear interested in what was going on in the Chamber, before looking down again at what was happening at the match.
	Notwithstanding the qualified nature of the recommendation before the House—and the fact that it is accompanied by an even more curious suggested qualification from my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray)—the Chair will have no means of knowing what is actually happening when these devices are in use. When we admit them—if we do—we shall have to recognise that they can be used for a variety of purposes that the Chair will find very difficult to distinguish from one another.

James Gray: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alan Haselhurst: I am afraid that I will not. It would extend the length of my speech, and I do not want to do that in view of the limited amount of time left. I apologise to my hon. Friend, because I did refer to him.
	It has been said that the purpose of allowing hand-held devices in the Chamber is to enable Members to get on with other activities—what my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) described as multitasking. I can honestly say, however, that over the years the Chair has tried to accommodate colleagues by not making them sit through the whole of debates. The convention is that Members are present for opening speeches and for the speeches immediately before and after their own, but the Chair sometimes provides guidance, bearing in mind that we are all under heavy pressure to do so many other things nowadays. I therefore do not think that the idea that Members have to be present for six hours and must get on with their work during that time is a particularly good excuse.
	I am not sure whether this still happens, but I know that the public have complained about the fact that the Chamber is so often empty and have asked, “Where are they? What are they doing?” One of my constituents said to me once that any Member who was not in his place in the Chamber for the whole of a debate should be deselected. That has been the level of misconception outside the House. But now, as they look around the Chamber, the public are beginning to notice that Members are, in fact, doing something. A moment ago I saw several colleagues, heads down. It is not a question of whether they are able to multitask, or whether they are unable to listen to what is being said; it is a question of what the public think they are doing—and they do appear to be distracted from what is going on. That is a reputational point, and the House should consider it. Although I suspect that the House will bow to the
	inevitable and say, “This is progress,” we must be aware of the direction in which we are heading and understand that the character of our debates is likely to alter.
	The Administration Committee report suggested that we should trial this move much more in Committee first, and I still believe that. I used to have doubts on this subject. When I was the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman’s Panel, we were rather opposed to the use of laptops, but I think that the tablet is different. It is less obtrusive and can be used effectively to deal with notes on clauses and all matters related to Committee work. I encourage this course of action, therefore, and that is why the Administration Committee is trying out how to operate in a paperless manner.
	To my mind therefore, a better balanced response would have been to say, “Let’s see how this works in Committee before considering whether there is an essential difference between the work in Committee and the work in the House.” My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), for whom I have great respect, said what he was commending was a balanced approach on hand-held devices. I think the Administration Committee proposal, which I have advocated in my speech, would have offered a better balance still.

Caroline Lucas: I warmly welcome this debate and congratulate the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) on his Committee’s work. I support the Procedure Committee recommendations on Select Committee amendments and handheld devices, but I shall focus on the motion on explanatory statements to amendments. That might sound like a very dry, technical and abstract issue, but I believe it goes to the heart of exposing something that is rotten about the way this place works. When I first arrived in Parliament as a new MP last year and started voting on legislation, I was shocked to discover that, due to lack of time, some Government amendments go through on Report “on the knife”, with neither debate nor explanation. That effectively means that legislation is being passed with no scrutiny whatever.
	It is equally scandalous that many MPs frequently have no idea what they are voting on when they file through the Lobby. The Procedure Committee has done excellent work in trying to address that problem and has offered the simple solution of explanatory statements. I addressed this issue last year in a report entitled, “The case for parliamentary reform”. Following that report, I was able to secure a lively and well-attended Backbench Business Committee debate in Westminster Hall, which was held on 3 February.
	During that debate, I was heartened by the degree of cross-party support that there was for the idea of explanatory statements for amendments taken on the Floor of the House. That was supported because the public would be rightly outraged were it to be widely known that legislation is being passed undebated and that many MPs are simply not in a position to know what they are voting on.

Steven Baker: Given the sheer volume of legislation that passes through this place, the truth is that none of us can be fully familiar with all of it. Surely the hon. Lady could be a little more generous-spirited to the rest of the House?

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Gentleman underlines my point. I am not blaming Members as they simply cannot know the minute details of the effects of all amendments. That is why having explanatory statements—a limited amount of text clearly explaining what a particular amendment seeks to achieve—is so important. If Members had that information, they would be much better able to exercise their vote judiciously on behalf of their constituents, and would be able to put their hand on their heart and say, “Yes, we do know what we are voting on here.”
	I was about to discuss the question of who is at fault. I am not blaming hon. Members; I am blaming the way we work. Given the way our system is set up, it is perhaps understandable—but it is not acceptable—that many MPs have to rely on the Whips to tell them how to vote, and do not really know what the amendment they are voting on actually does. I have seen Members literally being physically propelled through the Aye Lobby in support of Government legislation even as they are trying to find out the significance of what they are voting on.
	Members might be less likely to be treated in such a way if there were a simple explanation of the effect of each amendment under consideration, and at least they would know whether they actually agreed with the Whips’ directions. If there were explanatory statements, there would be more transparency and better debates, and Members would be better able to object when the Government make a large number of significant amendments to their own legislation on Report with inadequate time for scrutiny.
	It is, of course, absolutely right that MPs should as much as possible listen and contribute to debates in the Chamber, which should enlighten them on the effect of any given amendment. However, as all Members know, being an effective MP involves many other tasks, including responsibilities to undertake work on Committees, to attend debates elsewhere, to chair and attend meetings, to take part in all-party groups, and to meet constituents. As a result, MPs do not, and frequently cannot, sit in the Chamber for all the time that the debate on amendments on which they will later vote is going on. Furthermore, if it were easier to work out what the amendments meant before the debate, more MPs might contribute.
	It is obviously good for democracy for MPs to know what they are voting on, but it is also important that we have a system that can be easily understood by members of the public who want to follow a Bill. Currently, interested citizens who might be following proceedings on television or on Twitter have to go separately to the Bill, then look up the clause and then probably go to the explanatory notes to the Bill to try and make sense of what is happening. We need a remedy.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady mentions explanatory notes to Bills, which we currently have. Does she agree that the proposal under discussion is simply an extension of what is already available? We have explanatory notes saying in plain English what a Bill does, and to extend that to amendments is a common-sense proposal, particularly for those of us and our constituents who do not have legal training. I have had experience of sitting in a Bill Committee and reading an amendment proposed by another Member and wondering what it means. Sometimes that is not clear until the debate starts. This proposal would address that problem.

Caroline Lucas: I completely agree. The hon. Lady’s comments underline the fact that the proposal is not as complicated as rocket science; rather, it is an extension of the common-sense measures that are already in place.

Chris Bryant: I must have been reading different explanatory notes than the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) as I have never known them to explain anything. I fear that explanatory notes on amendments would be even worse, and I note that the report states:
	“An explanatory statement is not required where the amendment is self-explanatory”.

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Gentleman can try to make fun of this proposal if he wants, but in the European Parliament it is mandatory to have an explanatory statement and it is incredibly useful. If it is condensed down to about 50 or 100 words and explains what a measure is intended to achieve, an awful lot more people will have an awful lot more sense of what is going on. If the hon. Gentleman wants to stand up and say he thinks it is absolutely fine that so many Members do not know what they are voting for, that is up to him, but I am not happy about that.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Caroline Lucas: I want to make some progress.
	There is an ongoing pilot in Public Bill Committees, which is permissive in that it allows Members to table explanatory statements to amendments if they wish. What is now needed is to make that pilot permanent and to extend it, so that Members can table explanatory statements in Committee of the whole House and, crucially, on Report.
	Given this state of affairs, it beggars belief that a Government who say they want more transparency and a healthier democracy were so negative and obstructive in their response to the Procedure Committee recommendation for explanatory statements on the Floor of the House. Why are the Government doing their utmost to block this simple move, which seeks to make sure that MPs are not just rubber-stamping legislation and to prevent the Government from sneaking things through on Report without any scrutiny whatever?
	The Government try to use the low take-up of the Public Bill Committee pilot as an argument against changing the status quo on the Floor of the House, but that argument does not stand up to scrutiny. First, as the Government well know, MPs serving on Public Bill Committees will all be thoroughly engaged in the detail of the Bill, and the 20 or so members of a PBC voting on an amendment that they have all thoroughly discussed in minute detail is quite different from a Division on the Floor of the House, where 650 Members are called to vote, the majority of whom have no idea of the specifics of what they are voting on. So explanatory statements would be there not for those who had tabled them but for those who are voting and, thus, the suggestion that a lack of action from people tabling them equates to a lack of demand simply does not stack up.
	If the Government really want to measure demand, why do they not simply survey MPs running down the escalators from Portcullis House to the Lobby all asking
	each other hurriedly, “What’s this on? What’s going on? What are we voting on?” Furthermore, the Government should have been leading on this pilot. If they had made the effort to provide explanatory statements consistently themselves, they could have created a culture where such provision was expected. Instead, they did nothing to participate in or assist with a simple pilot of a mechanism to increase transparency.
	When I tabled explanatory statements alongside my amendments in the Energy Public Bill Committee, MPs from all parts of the House told me how helpful they found it. This is about leading and working to change the standards that Members expect, and have expected of them, when they try to change legislation.

Zac Goldsmith: I understand that this proposal does not require the Government or anyone tabling an amendment to provide an explanation, but merely allows them to do so.

Chris Bryant: The Government have to.

Zac Goldsmith: So it requires the Government to— I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention on my intervention.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think that we will have the debate carried out through the Chair.

Zac Goldsmith: My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. Does the hon. Lady agree that this should be a requirement on anyone tabling an amendment in order to boost slightly the chances of people having some idea of what they are voting on when they go through the Lobby? I absolutely concur with her view that most people have no idea what they are doing when they vote.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree with him. It should be the case that not only the Government, but all Members should provide a short explanatory statement explaining the purpose of any amendment that they table. That would help everybody.
	The Government’s complaint about these explanatory statements, as set out in their response to the Committee’s report, was that the statements would be a “burden”. Their idea that providing the statements would be too burdensome for them displays an incredible arrogance. If they want to change the law, they have to accept the work involved in making their intentions transparent. They should be more respectful of the right of this House to scrutinise the laws they want to pass.
	In conclusion, this proposal is about redressing the balance between Back Benchers and the Executive. The Executive are riding roughshod over the rights of Back Benchers to scrutinise them. The Government have put up obstructive objections, which demonstrate their desire to maintain a massive imbalance in their favour. This is bad for Back Benchers, bad for democracy and bad for the legislation that we must live by. So long as MPs are not told what they are voting on and Government amendments go through without debate, our system merely delivers an illusion of scrutiny. I can think only
	that the Government are trying to protect a system that serves to keep MPs as Lobby fodder and to keep the public in the dark. We are talking about secretive and opaque processes that serve against transparency and are reminiscent of the processes preserved for so long to try to hide the expenses scandal. I can assume only that the Government are taking this approach with some deliberate measures in mind. The fact that MPs have no idea what they are voting on is a scandal. It has been going on for years, but as the public find out more about it, as with expenses, they will be rightly horrified.
	Eight months have passed since the debate on parliamentary reform in Westminster Hall, and I am disappointed that it has not been possible to effect greater change more quickly. I hope that the motion on explanatory statements will go through today. If it does, it will be a quiet but significant win for transparency and democracy. But if the Government force a vote, whipped or not, I hope very much that Back Benchers will stand up for themselves to address a glaring fault in our parliamentary democracy and correct the appalling imbalance that currently favours the Executive.

Roger Gale: I shall be very brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to support the amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray). I am particularly concerned, as a member of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairs, at the impact of the proposals before the House on behaviour in Committee. I fear that if the report goes through, as it is suggested it will, and if that impact is felt on the Floor of the House, it is almost inevitable that those of us who find ourselves in the business of having to chair legislative Committees upstairs will be under similar pressures to allow similar devices in Committee.
	What we have experienced in the House over the past few years is, first, a definite shift away from the use of notes and the participation in genuine parliamentary debate, of which this country has historically been very proud, and towards the preparation and reading of speeches. The preparation has been carried out either by the Member concerned or by other people who then persuade the Member to read the speeches for them. That has become particularly prevalent in Public Bill Committees. It is no great secret that hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken to reading into the record vast tracts of brief prepared by lobbyists for the sole purpose of putting something on the record. That is not debate: it is a misuse and an abuse of the processes of this House. If we are now to suggest that hon. Members on both sides of the House are going to be allowed to twitter and tweet and receive comment in the course of these debates, it is inevitable that we will have people sitting in the Public Gallery sending messages, saying, “Ask him this,” “Tell her that,” or “Read this.” That is not what this place is about. If hon. Members come into this Chamber, they can and should be expected to sit down, listen to the debate, hear what other Members are saying and agree, disagree and comment accordingly, rather than simply reading out prepared speeches.
	As the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr Deputy Speaker, you, like your predecessor, have been extremely understanding in giving leeway to those of us who chair legislative Committees, allowing us to manage the business on the Floor of the House, when there is a Committee
	of the Whole House, or in Committee in our own way and in the interests of the Members and the business they are trying to get through. It works. Any man or woman sitting in the Chair, whether that is the big Chair in which you sit, Mr Deputy Speaker, or the slightly smaller Chair in one of the Committee rooms, has to exercise the Nelson touch and we do so constantly. We know what is going on; we know that on occasion the processes of the House are being abused.
	We know that hon. Members are busy people and that within the next six weeks, before Christmas, Committee tables will suddenly be piled with Christmas cards being signed while Members are also participating in Committee business. That is inevitable. It is multi-tasking and a dual use of time, but as a Chairman I object to the kind of situation that occurred fairly recently in a Committee over which I was presiding. A Front-Bench spokesman—I will not name the party—was so obsessed with an electronic device and the manipulation of that machine that they missed the amendment they were supposed to be moving, in spite of my best efforts to get their attention from the Chair and draw them back to the business in which they were supposed to be participating. That is nonsense.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Roger Gale: No, I am going to be very brief.
	Outside the Committee Rooms upstairs, there are wonderful green benches, rather like the ones in the Chamber, and lots of tables and telephones where people can go and work, send messages, receive messages, have cups of coffee and do what they like outside the Committee Room. I can see no place for these electronic devices in the Committee Room at all, any more than I can see any rhyme or reason why Members should sit there reading newspapers and magazines, which is, of course, also not allowed.
	I accept—and use—a radio pager. On occasions, I have received messages while I have been in the Chair and I have had to say to the Badge Messenger, “Here’s a telephone number. Can you please go and ring that person and tell them that I cannot talk to them because I am in Committee and that I will ring them when I come out?” I do not have a problem with that—I do not know a Chairman who does. I do not have a problem with the sensible, quiet, courteous and discreet use of these machines in precisely the way that the House of Lords, at the other end of the building, has adopted the procedure. If we go down the route that is to be proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, we shall achieve what we want to achieve, which is a solution that is pragmatic, practical and protects the dignity of the House. I urge the House to accept the amendment.

Kevin Brennan: I support the proposal ably put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight)—and he is my friend. He has recently printed an excellent book, “Dishonourable Insults”, in which I appear on page 163, and I thank him for that, too—[ Interruption. ] It is available in all good book shops and I wish him every success. When I intervened on him earlier, I suggested
	that in addition to his proposals we should ensure that we have wireless reception in the House of Commons Chamber. Not so long ago, when I was trying to live tweet during Prime Minister’s questions—I had advertised the fact that I would try to do so in advance—I failed completely because of the poor reception we sometimes get here for electronic devices. I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, if, in doing so and in making that admission, I was breaking some rules of the House at the time.
	May I clarify one thing? I had a little contretemps in the Chamber earlier this year with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who told us with his characteristic modesty that he was the first MP ever to sign up for Twitter—

Julian Huppert: rose—

Kevin Brennan: I see I have provoked him into intervening, and I cannot say no after I mentioned him, can I?

Julian Huppert: I thank the hon. Gentleman for praising my modesty—that is very kind of him. We did have that discussion, but I think things have moved on. I wanted to be clear in case I misspoke earlier: of the current MPs, I believe I was the first. I was certainly not the first MP on Twitter. I do not know who has that honour, although I am sure they will claim it later.

Kevin Brennan: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention because he has highlighted the fact that what I said about his modesty was meant to be ironic, and Hansard does not pick that up very well, so this gives me the opportunity to make that clear. Let me repeat a proposal that I have made in the past—that irony should be put in italics in Hansard so that everybody outside reading it can understand what exactly was meant.
	The contretemps that the hon. Gentleman and I had was in relation to a point of order that I raised while you were in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. At that time, your ruling was interpreted as a ban on the use of Twitter in the Chamber, but I know, having had subsequent talks with you, that that was not exactly what you meant.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. For clarification, it is not that what I said was not what I meant—it was that people had not listened, I think.

Kevin Brennan: I stand corrected, Mr Deputy Speaker. As ever, what you said was very wise indeed.
	Returning to the point about the hon. Member for Cambridge, my point of order related to his use of Twitter in the Chamber during a debate when he was disputing something that was being said from the Dispatch Box by another Member. I think that some very reasonable concerns have been raised by opponents of the motion on how it could impact on the quality of debate. I have always thought that if one has a point of dispute or question about what is being said by someone who has the Floor of the House or other Chamber, one should attempt to intervene before one starts putting out messages disputing what they are saying on Twitter. I think that is the kind of courtesy and common sense that the Chairman and his Committee are calling for in their recommendations.
	Yesterday, I met a delegation from the central committee school of the Communist party of China, who were very interested in what I had to say about communications and Twitter and the way that MPs use them. If I tell the House that the delegation was somewhat sceptical about my advocating the use of Twitter, hon. Members might understand that I think it is a force for good, for democracy, for free speech and for communication with our constituents, and not a source for bad. I understand the concerns held by many hon. Members on the Government side but I think they might find themselves embracing this means of communication in the near future as a good way of getting their messages about politics and their views out there and of engaging in interactive discussion with their constituents and others.

Robert Halfon: I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree that social media such as Twitter and Facebook give MPs the chance to broadcast to their constituents without relying on broadcasters?

Kevin Brennan: I do. Further than that, it can also lead to opportunities to broadcast through the more conventional media. For example, as some hon. Members will know, yesterday in Welsh questions I asked the Welsh Secretary to ask the Prime Minister, when he was sitting next to her, to make sure that the Welsh flag was flying over No. 10 Downing street this weekend, just as the flag of St George flew last year during the World cup, to acknowledge the achievements of the Welsh rugby team. After Prime Minister’s questions I was invited on to a phone-in on Radio Wales on which there was a very lively discussion about this proposition. By five o’clock in the evening the Prime Minister had quite rightly agreed that the flag could be flying, and I give him credit for that. So, very quickly, Twitter, conventional media and the use of this Chamber altogether were involved in getting a result for constituents. I think that is a good example of how this technology can be beneficial.

Jo Swinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin Brennan: I will give way for the last time because I had not intended to take up my full time.

Jo Swinson: I am very grateful. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although Twitter can certainly be useful for broadcasting, the real value of that kind of interaction is that it is not solely about broadcasting, with MPs sending out messages to constituents, but that it allows two-way communication and can really engage people in the political process?

Kevin Brennan: I just about heard the hon. Lady over the twittering of her colleagues at the Bar. She is absolutely right. I was about to make that point, but I will not do so in the interests of brevity, because she has made it for me.
	I wrote an article, alongside the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), in Total Politics magazine a few months ago in which we debated these issues. I think I made it clear in that article that I respect and understand where he is coming from. Like other right
	hon. and hon. Government Members who have spoken about the issue, he wants to maintain the reputation of the House for the quality of its debates and to ensure that our debates do not descend into a simple parade of read-out speeches. I agree that it would be the death of debate in the House if that happened, but their fears are misplaced.
	One can embrace and use such technology and such devices while enlivening and enhancing our debates by bringing in information—yes, from outside, but what is wrong with that? If Ministers can get in-flight refuelling from the officials’ box, why cannot Back Benchers get in-flight refuelling electronically during their speeches if a useful fact can be drawn from outside? I see nothing wrong in being able to draw on all the expertise and information that is available from outside the Chamber.
	In our exchange of articles, the hon. Gentleman made some very interesting points, but I will end by simply saying that there is nothing new in political communication in trying to get a message across in a pithy, memorable way, as Twitter enables us to do. In fact, I think that it was a certain Winston Churchill who said:
	“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”—[Official Report, 20 August 1940; Vol. 364, c. 1167.]
	If that statement was issued as a tweet, it would leave 66 of the 140 characters available on Twitter still to play with. That goes to show that those who want to fight the onslaught of technology on the beaches will find that the tide is turning against them.

James Gray: I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak and to Mr Speaker for selecting the amendment that stands in my name and those of a goodly number of right hon. and hon. Members from across the Chamber. I thank you for allowing a goodly amount of time for this important and useful debate. I do not intend to take up much of the House’s time, because a number of useful speeches have addressed most of the important arguments on both sides of the debate.
	I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), who started the debate by saying that this is a matter of taste, discretion and delicacy. There are not passionate arguments on either side. One side is not definitely right and the other side definitely wrong. It is a matter of how we handle such machines, what we use them for, what their purpose is and how we ensure that debate in the Chamber is as good as possible.
	In fact, as is often the case when we discuss matters that affect ourselves, today’s debate on the issue has been among those of the highest quality that I have heard recently. My right hon. Friend’s Committee was split on the report; four of us have signed the amendment disagreeing with it. We go from his stance, which is that virtually any electronic device can be used for virtually any purpose either in the Chamber or in Committee, through to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), a former Deputy Speaker—he is by no means a dinosaur in this matter—whose broad view is that such devices should not be used for any purpose whatsoever.
	I received a letter from a very senior Member with which I would not necessarily agree. He said that he felt that the rules applying in the House should be precisely the same as those applying at the opera—we should not use such devices at all—and there is some sense in that, although I do not necessarily agree with it.

Chris Bryant: Give us a song!

James Gray: I shall not give the House a song; I fear that my voice does not rise to that.
	I would not necessarily agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who focused on the use of electronic devices for Twitter. It is right that I suggested in the e-mail that I sent to all hon. Members that we should probably not use Twitter and blogging, although I will suggest how we might be able to use them. I am not necessarily totally opposed to the notion of twittering.
	The main thrust of my amendment, and of my thoughts on the subject—and the thoughts of a great many hon. Members who have spoken to me—is that if we allow unfettered use of electronic devices, three things will happen. The first is that the quality of debate will decline. Let me give an example. Recently, I chaired a Public Bill Committee. Glancing round the room, I saw that some two thirds of the people on the Committee were using electronic devices for one purpose or another. That included the shadow Minister, the Minister, both Whips, and six or eight Back Benchers, one of whom, rather magically, was using two electronic devices simultaneously; how on earth he managed to do that I have simply no idea. It seemed to me that the fine technical point being made about the Pensions Bill—for that was the Bill—was not necessarily being considered carefully by the two thirds of the Committee who were using those machines at that time. Had I challenged members of the Committee to lay out precisely what the person speaking had just said, a very large percentage of them would have looked at me blankly, and would not have had the faintest idea what was going on.
	I totally accept the point made by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), that we can all multi-task. Of course we can; there is no question about that. MPs do it all the time. However, I simply do not believe that the finer points of argument in a debate will necessarily be picked up if one is focusing one’s mind on something else. The purpose of debate is not just for our own voices to be heard, or to get something on the record; we could do that by handing the speech in, as they do in the United States of America. The purpose of debate is to listen carefully to what the other person is saying, to pick up the other person on fine illogicalities in their speech, to make delicate points, and hopefully to come to some kind of useful conclusion. If a person is focusing on emptying their inbox, surfing the net, tweeting or who knows what else—famously, recently a member of the Italian Parliament was spotted surfing an escort site—while theoretically listening carefully to a debate, they are not taking part in it in the way that they should.

Guto Bebb: The crux of the issue has been touched on. In the Welsh Assembly, every Member sits in front of a computer. Earlier this year, the Conservative Assembly Member for North Wales,
	Brynle Williams, passed away at a very young age. A Labour Member, paying tribute to him on the radio, said, “When Brynle Williams spoke in the Chamber, we stopped working on our computers and listened.” Is that not the crux of the issue?

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and it is useful to hear of his experience of the Welsh Assembly, where such changes have been made. Elsewhere around the world, there are examples of all kinds of Parliaments where people use the devices excessively and so are not taking proper part in the debate. [Interruption.] I am being passed a message—on paper—from the Whip, which reminds me to move my amendment; I shall indeed do so. I am most grateful to her; had she passed me that electronically, I would not have got it.
	I beg move amendment (a) to motion 1, leave out from ‘used in the Chamber’ to end and add—
	‘to a minimal extent, silently and with decorum, to receive and send urgent messages, as a substitute for paper speaking notes and to refer to documents for use in debates, but not for any other purpose.’.
	That useful intervention from my hon. Friend the Whip leads me to the second reason why I feel uneasy about unfettered use of electronic devices. Whereas at the moment outside interests—including, dare I say it, the Whips Office—may have some influence over what we do or say, or how we vote in this place, by and large they have to exercise that influence in writing, prior to the debate. It would be particularly unhelpful if, during a speech or debate, outside interests—lobbyists, businesses and groups of all kinds—got in touch with us on our electronic devices and said, “I think you should ask the Minister such and such a question, because that is a weak point in their argument,” or “I think you should do this or that.” We should be listening carefully to the logic of the other person’s speech, and seeking to counter that argument not because a lobbying company or the Whips have asked us to do so, but because it is what we want to do.

David Nuttall: Does my hon. Friend not accept that that is possible under the rules as they stand? It is perfectly possible right now, under the rules of the House, for someone to receive a message and check it in debate.

James Gray: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and if that were to happen, I would decry it. The purpose of my amendment is to say that electronic devices should be used for the purposes of the matter under debate and no other purpose. If the Chamber was seen to be full of people blogging, tweeting and surfing the net, it would risk bringing the Chamber into disrepute.

Zac Goldsmith: Does my hon. Friend not agree that one of the reasons MPs exist is so that people can lobby them with a view to influencing Parliament?

James Gray: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, I was a professional lobbyist for a number of years and so have no difficulty with that whatever. It is of course right that all sorts of interest groups around
	the world, from journalists to lobby groups, should be able to make their views known to us, but I am not certain about the propriety of a lobby group, the Whips or anyone else getting in touch with us during the course of a debate or a Select Committee evidence session to say, “Here’s an interesting point you ought to raise.” Would it really be right for outside interest groups to get in touch with us via electronic devices during Select Committee cross-examinations, for example of the Murdochs, and say, “Here’s something you ought to say”? I think that that would be an unreasonable intervention in our internal debates by outside influences.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I will give way, but first I should say that I am absolutely sure that what the hon. Gentleman said during the Select Committee cross-examination of the Murdochs was entirely his own idea, irrespective of what outside influences might have said to him.

Chris Bryant: Well, I was not a member of that Committee, but that is just one minor factual inaccuracy of several that we are passing by. The point I was going to make is that one of the oldest rights of members of the public and constituents is the right to come to the Lobby and demand that we come out of a debate to listen to their point of view, so I do not see the difference.

James Gray: The difference is extremely simple. Someone outside communicating via an electronic device during a debate is not equivalent to a member of the public coming to Central Lobby, filling in a green form and asking to speak to us; it is equivalent to a member of the public coming into the Chamber and saying, “Would the hon. Gentleman please ask this question?” which I do not believe is right. We should be debating among ourselves and not excessively involving people outside.
	Most people agree that excessive use of electronic devices is not a good thing. Two or three objections have been raised with me. The first relates to the fact that we must all sit here for six or seven hours before finally being called to speak. That could be corrected in two ways: first, Members could take a greater interest in the debate; and secondly, we could perhaps move to the system enjoyed at the other end of the Palace, where peers have some indication of when they will speak. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues tend to indicate when Members will be called to speak, but the notion that we should sit here clearing our inboxes or writing articles on electronic devices for local newspapers because we are a little bored and cannot be bothered to listen to a debate seems a thin argument.

Gavin Shuker: The hon. Gentleman makes his case powerfully, although I do not necessarily agree with it. Is the key issue not that Members can best engage in debate by being in the Chamber? If we are outside doing the work of clearing inboxes, the example he raised, we cannot be present listening to the arguments. I agree that Members should be present in the Chamber more often, but I believe that his amendment would prevent that.

James Gray: On the contrary, my amendment encourages Members to make use of their electronic devices in the Chamber for purposes connected with the debate. That is the important point about the amendment.
	The last main objections that have been raised concern the fact that the amendment’s proposals would be very difficult to police. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, sent out a letter in July stating that although any such ban on the use of hand-held devices would be difficult to police, it would none the less be down to the individual discretion and decency of hon. Members not to use them. There are all kinds of conventions and rules in this place that we observe. They do not have to be written down or policed. The fact of the matter is that there are things that we agree to do, and I believe that the amendment's proposal should be one of them.
	If we allow the Procedure Committee’s report to be agreed as printed, we will end up with a Chamber full of Members staring at their electronic devices—I can see three or four doing so now. I suspect that those looking in from outside, whether from the Public Gallery or on television screens, would say, “What are those people doing? We used to object to the Chamber being too empty. It has filled up a little, but look at them all playing with their electronic devices.” I think that it brings the whole nature of debate in this place into some disrepute. I would like to see the standard of debate maintained. We are the mother of Parliaments. Let us engage with each other in detailed and logical debate and not spend an excessive amount of time on our electronic devices.

Angela Smith: With the leave of the House, I should like to put on record my tribute to the work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who discharged her duties in the House assiduously and will be a very hard act to follow.
	We on the Opposition Front Bench support the motion on explanatory statements put forward by the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight). The Committee’s recommendation marks progress from an position already established, and as I understand it, Government Front Benchers have also adopted the recommendation, so I hope that it receives support from all parts of the House today.
	We also support the sensible recommendation on written parliamentary questions, because there are alternatives to electronically tabled written questions, and if implemented the recommendation will not curtail the opportunities for Members to table written questions, as is their right.
	We do, however, believe that the motion on a Select Committee’s right to table amendments to legislation should be sent back to the Procedure Committee for further consideration, as it has not been thoroughly thought out.

Alan Beith: That recommendation was introduced by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in the previous Session; it was carefully considered by the Liaison Committee; and it has now been carefully considered and substantially modified by the Procedure Committee
	in order to meet those concerns. Do we have another case of the two Front-Bench teams conniving to stop Select Committees and Back Benchers having rights in this House?

Angela Smith: Perish the thought.
	My point is that, if we give Select Committees the right to table amendments to legislation, business relating to the Floor of the House and Public Bill Committees, will it not create the danger of Select Committees taking a much less consensual approach to their work? That is the real risk with the recommendation, and for that reason it should go back for further consideration.
	I turn to the recommendation on hand-held devices. I do not need to repeat the background to the debate which goes back to the decision in 2007, because the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire outlined it very clearly. Suffice it to say that technology has moved things forward at a rapid pace—to the extent that we now have smartphones, iPads and other tablets, which have completely transformed the way in which Members conduct their business.
	On top of that, we have new forms of communication. According to the Procedure Committee’s report, 225 Members tweet or have Twitter accounts, but in today’s debate we have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) state that the figure now stands at 300. That demonstrates how over a six-month period 75 Members have signed up for Twitter accounts. It also shows the popularity of the device as a means of communication, and for that reason alone Members increasingly see new forms of communication such as Twitter as making it easier for us to open up a dialogue with the world outside—with the people we serve. Those new forms of communication and technology have called into question once again how we conduct our business in the Chamber.
	I was elected in 2005. At that point, I never thought that I would be standing here on the Front Bench making arguments about smartphones, iPads and Twitter accounts, but that in itself demonstrates how quickly the world is moving forward and how difficult it is for the House to keep up. It would be all too easy to step backwards and pretend that the world has not changed. We could pretend that Steve Jobs never existed and say to ourselves that the business of the House should stay true to the days of paper, pen and ink. However, to do that would be to deny reality and to deny the dynamic relationship that now exists between Parliament and the world outside. Even if we deny it, the media, quite rightly, will not. We cannot, therefore, fulfil our obligations as legislators effectively if we pretend that the world outside has not got smaller and smaller in terms of how quickly news travels.
	There are advantages and disadvantages in allowing a more relaxed approach to the use of hand-held devices by Members on the Floor of the House and in Committee, for it is undoubtedly the case that members of the public sometimes object to seeing Members of this House using their phones or their iPads while here in the Chamber. If the Chair of the Administration Committee were in his place, I am sure that he would testify to that fact.

Robert Halfon: I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s remarks. While it is true that some members of the public object, it is also true that many of them like the
	fact that their MPs are on Twitter and on Facebook communicating what they are doing. Does she agree that that has come about partly because of the huge shift from paper to electronic mail and in how our constituents communicate with us?

Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is absolutely the argument that I am trying to make.
	Although such behaviour is seen by some members of the public as discourteous and indicative of a lack of attention to the business of the House, and although on occasion that has proved to be true, and excessive and obtrusive use of such devices should be deplored, I would contest that excessive chatter and private conversations on the part of Members is equally to be deplored, and that it is those who persist in that kind of behaviour who bring the business of this House into disrepute. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, who pointed out that Members who fall asleep in the Chamber while business is being discussed are most to be censured for discourteous behaviour. Indeed, it has been known on occasion even for Front Benchers to fall asleep or to snooze while the business of the House is ongoing.
	We need to be pragmatic in our approach. Those who would continue a stricter approach to the use of hand-held devices in the Chamber on the grounds that it constitutes interference in parliamentary proceedings ought to bear in mind that we already allow the passing of messages and envelopes containing paper-based documents in and out of the Chamber for use in debate. On that basis, why cannot we allow the electronic transfer of such information for use in the Chamber? If a Member is given statistics relating to a debate via documents passed to her or him in an envelope brought to the Chamber by a member of his or her staff, then why should not that be done independently by the MP in the Chamber using an electronic device? Moreover, as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said, given that civil servants pass a fairly constant stream of notes to the Government Front Bench during debate, why should not other Members of the House be able to access information speedily and without delay?
	We support the motion laid before the House by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and other Members, and we commend the Procedure Committee for its work. We believe that it represents a pragmatic response to the challenges raised by the development of new technology and means of communication in that it requires Members to be sensible and discreet about their use of electronic devices in this Chamber and elsewhere. We also support the recommendations in the Select Committee report relating to Twitter and to tweeting, which are, again, sensible and pragmatic. As someone who has a Twitter account—and who is about to get her 1,000th follower—but who does not generally tweet in this Chamber, I nevertheless uphold the right to do so and the inevitable pragmatic need to give way on that point.
	Our view is that we should give the approach recommended by the Procedure Committee an opportunity to work. We should bear it in mind that it is always possible to review the decision if it is felt that the recommended way forward is not working.

Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that this is a point of order; I am still somewhat feeling my way in this place. There is another debate this afternoon, which was brought about by the Backbench Business Committee as a consequence of one of the first e-petitions. I might be wrong, but I understand that this debate can carry on until any hour. Judging by the number of colleagues who are standing to speak, it looks as though the second debate will get less time than a Westminster Hall debate. If that is the case and the second debate gets squeezed out, I hope that the Leader of the House, who is in his place, will consider giving it injury time at some point because it is an important debate that affects the constituents of a large number of Members.

George Young: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House tried to protect the debate in which my hon. Friend has an interest by tabling a motion last night. Sadly, that was blocked by a member of the Backbench Business Committee.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am very concerned about the time that this debate is taking. I will reduce the time limit on speeches and hopefully, if we have some brevity, we will get to the second debate. The high speed debate is important to this House and people will not understand why we are spending so much time on ourselves and our use of hand-held devices. As important as this is, we need to make progress as quickly as possible.

David Heath: High-speed debates sound like a very good idea, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	As I did not get to warmly welcome the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) to her new responsibilities in our cameo appearances last night, may I do so now? I echo what she said about her predecessor, the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), with whom I always enjoyed debating. I wish her well in her new responsibilities.
	I congratulate the Chairman of the Procedure Committee on securing this debate on his Committee’s proposals. The one area in which I disagree with him is on whether this debate should be held in Backbench Business Committee time. The Government have implemented the Wright Committee’s report, which was explicit on this matter. We hold to the position that the House should follow what the Wright Committee said on this matter. It is therefore the responsibility of the Backbench Business Committee.
	I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the motions, which I will take in order. The first motion on electronic devices is very much a House of Commons matter. Perhaps I should indicate that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I will support the motion, although some ministerial colleagues may hold other views.
	Changes in technology have been swift and the Procedure Committee has taken a sensible approach in seeking to update the 2007 resolution in a way that might not need constant updating as technologies change. The Committee
	helpfully demonstrates how its proposed change is in line with trends in other legislatures. The concept of not impairing decorum that has been adopted by the US House of Representatives is helpful. I am sure that Mr Speaker will decide, with characteristic wisdom, how this resolution will be interpreted in practice, just as he has provided general guidance about appropriate conduct in the Chamber.
	I support the comparable changes for Committees, although I have one reservation in that respect, to which the Procedure Committee has referred. Tweeting about an ongoing evidence session would be discourteous and disclosing deliberations in that way could be a breach of privilege. That is an important reservation to enter at this point.
	There is no Government position on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) and others, although enforcement of the resolution, if amended in that way, might pose significant challenges for the occupant of the Chair.
	I noticed that in opposing the amendment the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) asked why Members should not receive facts while they are preparing to speak. The explanation, perhaps, is that facts would entirely demolish the speeches of some hon. Members. Of course, just because a Member has received a fact does not mean that they have to take any notice of it.
	The second motion, on Select Committee amendments, is where the Government part company with the Procedure Committee, because we do not believe that the case for the change has been made. We are continuing the position of the previous Government, which I believe is still that of the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge and the Opposition. Interestingly, that position was expressed at the time by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I am not sure whether he still takes that view.
	Currently, amendments are tabled in the name of a Member of the House—it does not matter whether they are tabled by the Government, the official Opposition or anybody else. The Procedure Committee argues that if an amendment appears simply in the names of members of a Select Committee, other Members may not realise its status, but I am not convinced by that.
	The Government have taken a number of steps to strengthen the Select Committee system—arguably more than any Government since that of 1979, under whom departmental Select Committees were established. We have enabled the House to take the bold step of electing Select Committee Chairs, and the profile of the Select Committee system continues to increase. I believe that an amendment in the name of members of a Select Committee will almost invariably be recognised as such by the House without the need for additional steps.

Alan Beith: I am very surprised to find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend on a House matter, because we very rarely disagree on them. However, a Select Committee amendment would have had to be approved unanimously by it. Is his real fear not that of the Whips Office—that on just one or two more occasions an amendment that was not moved by a Minister might be selected by the Chair and be debated in the House? Is he not simply echoing the traditional Front-Bench view
	that anything that allows Back Benchers to get anywhere near getting amendments selected is far too dangerous to be permitted?

David Heath: It is extremely rare that I disagree with my right hon. Friend, but I do on this matter. The selection of amendments is, of course, a matter for the Chair, and if the Chair feels that a Select Committee’s members are proposing an amendment that needs to be debated, it will be selected. However, it is a serious concern that under the Procedure Committee’s proposal three members of a Select Committee, who would form a quorum, could obtain a Committee’s imprimatur for an amendment. That amendment would attribute to all members of the Committee a position that was held only by those present at a meeting. I do not think that that does the House a service.

Alan Beith: I want to make a further correction, because I do not want to delay the debate any further by making a speech—I want the rail debate to go ahead.
	My hon. Friend must recognise that any member of a Committee who felt dissatisfied with an amendment tabled in the name of their Committee, their having been notified of a meeting but not gone to it, would make that abundantly clear. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) made it clear at the beginning of the debate that he did not support the motion moved by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight).

David Heath: I am sure an hon. Member in that position would make their dissatisfaction abundantly clear, but equally it does not seem beyond the bound of reason that a Chair of a Select Committee could make it abundantly clear that he or she was presenting an amendment in the name of the Committee. The same arguments apply, and I am not persuaded by my right hon. Friend, which is why my ministerial colleagues and I will vote against the motion.
	I turn to the third motion, on explanatory statements on amendments, and the remarks of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). The crux of what she said was that the Government were being unreasonably obstructive and unhelpful in their approach. However, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is quoted in the Committee’s report as having said:
	“I would certainly not oppose the continuation of explanatory statements”.
	The report also quotes my comment:
	“I am certainly happy, as far as the Government are concerned, for that experiment to proceed.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2011; Vol. 522, c. 384WH.]
	It might be said that the barriers that we have sought to erect to prevent it from happening are rather low indeed. I repeat today the Government’s position that we will support the recommendation. However, it is important that we express caveats for the benefit of the House.

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Gentleman said that the agreement was on the voluntary introduction of explanatory statements, but we are driving towards something mandatory. In his response to the Committee’s report, words such as “significant burden”, “lukewarm support”, “inconclusive” and “disappointing” strongly suggest that the Government are not firmly behind our proposal.

David Heath: The lukewarm response was not from the Government—this Government and previous Governments have been happy to table explanatory amendments—but from other Members who showed not the slightest inclination to do so. That is the concern.
	Let us go back to the origins. The experiment with explanatory statements on amendments was first proposed by the Modernisation Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), in its 2006 report on the legislative process. The Committee envisaged that the main benefit would be helping Ministers and civil servants to understand the intention behind Back-Bench and Opposition amendments, so that the Minister was prepared to address the issues that the Member wanted to debate and to respond to the queries or concerns being raised. They were envisaged as a vehicle for Back Benchers to explain their amendments, rather than for the Government to explain their amendments, for which there are many other mechanisms. Despite that, and although the Government have participated fully in each pilot, the take-up by Back Benchers has been low and has declined since the first pilot.
	We have to acknowledge the resource implications. The Procedure Committee was told in the previous Parliament that the general application of explanatory notes to all Committee papers would cost the House services alone more than £100,000, and the costs would be greater still if applied on Report. That takes no account of the staff resource implications for the House services and the Government. The Government agreed to provide explanatory notes to all amendments in previous pilot schemes, and the Procedure Committee envisaged a mandatory requirement for Government amendments on Report. At the same time, however, the Committee rejected imposing such a requirement on others. I take it from what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said that she would like that to apply mandatorily to others. There is some justification for that, but there is little justification for the current asymmetrical approach.
	If the motion is agreed to, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will write to the Procedure Committee with proposals for the pilot. This is the last chance to show that the voluntary approach for everyone other than the Government could work as originally envisaged by the Modernisation Committee. We will want the experiment to demonstrate clear value-for-money benefits to the House, and if it does not, we might decline to support any further proposals along the same lines.
	I support the final motion on written parliamentary questions. Again, the proposal is for a pilot scheme involving an earlier cut-off point for electronically tabled questions and a daily quota of five written questions that could be so tabled for an experimental period of three months. The right to table questions belongs to hon. Members and hon. Members alone. If the experiment encourages Members to take a closer interest in questions prepared by their staff, that would surely be a good thing. The average cost to the taxpayer of tabling a question is £239. Although overall quotas are not proposed, I am sure that hon. Members will wish to be mindful of the costs of what they do. We are keen to ensure that all written questions receive timely, substantive answers. If the pilot leads to “fewer, better questions”, as the Procedure Committee hopes, I would hope also to see quicker, better answers. We will provide the statistics on the timeliness of answers in the current Session on the timetable requested by the Procedure Committee.
	To end where I began—on the theme of technological change—I can confirm that the Government are keen to work closely with the House authorities to take forward proposals for the electronic distribution of answers, which would benefit all Members.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: I am reducing the time limit on speeches to five minutes.

Chris Bryant: Much of the debate on the use of hand-held devices—I note, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you called them “held-hand devices” when introducing the debate, but I am not sure what such a device might look like—reminds me of the Russian Orthodox Church, which in November 1917, while the revolution was gathering around it, spent its time debating whether to wear black or purple vestments for funerals. The honest truth is that the horse has bolted.
	We can see them all round the Chamber: @ZacGoldsmith, @CarolineLucas, @lucianaberger, @SteveBakerMP and, of course, the brilliantly named @claire4devizes. All tweet regularly—[ Interruption. ] There is also @stellacreasy and many other Members.

Steven Baker: rose—

Chris Bryant: I give way to @SteveBakerMP.

Steven Baker: Even though I was named in January as the most influential MP on Twitter—ahead, even, of the hon. Gentleman—I am most concerned that we should get on to the next business before I am flayed alive by my constituents.

Chris Bryant: I understand, because the hon. Gentleman is the Member for Wycombe, and I know how such issues affect people there, but if he had not intervened, we would get on to the next business faster.
	I want to correct a couple of points made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray). He seemed to think that I was on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I should point out that I am not @tom_watson. There are a few differences between us, although we are often seen together.
	I should also say that although he has been much misquoted, John Bright, the Liberal Member of Parliament, did not say that we—the House of Commons—were the mother of Parliaments; he said that England is the mother of Parliaments. That is because he believed—this is an important point—that we had to be transformed as history is transformed. I would say that Parliament has always been bad at opening itself up to the public. Indeed, in 1376 we first decided that we would take an oath of secrecy to ensure that nobody outside this place knew what was going on here. It took many centuries to get rid of that oath of secrecy, which was why John Wilkes ended up being expelled from the House of Commons on four occasions and had to be re-elected before eventually being allowed to publish what went on this House.
	It is not a question of being dinosaurs or anything else; it is about opening Parliament up to the wider world around us, so that people can understand everything that goes on here. It is not for our convenience, but for our constituents’ convenience. The world has changed. When I was first elected in 2001, the vast majority of my constituents got in touch with me by coming to a constituency surgery. Now the vast majority get in touch by Facebook, Twitter, e-mail and, sometimes, text messages. We should make that more possible for our constituents, not more difficult.
	Incidentally, I wholeheartedly agree with @KevinBrennanMP, who said earlier that proper wi-fi should be available in the Chamber so that people can engage properly. I disagree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that only urgent messages should be dealt with. Who on earth will decide what an urgent message is? It is my constituents who should decide what an urgent message is.

James Gray: rose—

Chris Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not give way, because others want to get on to the next debate.
	I have this picture in my mind of the Speaker going over to an hon. Member and demanding to see their last tweet or this place setting up “Oftwit” to ensure that Members are behaving properly. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) has only to listen to our constituents to find out what they are more interested in.
	Members have said how inappropriate it would be if facts were brought to bear in debate, but that is what the officials Box is there for. [ Interruption. ] I see them smiling. Perhaps we should abolish the officials Box, so that Ministers have to rely on their own wit and intelligence. Would it not also be good if “Erskine May” was available online so that people could refer to it in the Chamber instead of having to buy a copy for several hundred pounds?
	I want to respond to a couple of points that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made. She is absolutely sincere in wanting to make our business more intelligible to people. However, I would like to know how explanatory notes to amendments would stand legally if an amendment were carried. There is a danger in proceeding down that route. In addition, I would have thought that the whole point of a debate on an amendment was to decide what it meant and what it did; just accepting at face value what the hon. Member who tabled it had said would not assist.

Caroline Lucas: rose—

Chris Bryant: I shall not give way, because I want to be circumspect.
	Finally, I look forward to the day when we have on Twitter @RogerGaleMP—and, for that matter, @15thcenturyMP, or perhaps he would be called @JacobReesMoggMP. I should also point out to the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who is not in his place, that one of his constituents has begged me on Twitter this afternoon to ask him to reinstate his Twitter account so that his constituents can get in touch with him better.

Patrick McLoughlin: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
	Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 63, Noes 206.

Question accordingly negatived
	.
	Main Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes the Third Report from the Procedure Committee on Use of hand-held electronic devices in the Chamber and committees, HC 889; and resolves that hand-held devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum, that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees.

Dawn Primarolo: I understand that the motion on Select Committee amendments will not be moved.

Explanatory Statements on Amendments to Bills

Resolved,
	That this House notes the recommendations relating to explanatory statements on amendments to bills contained in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Second Report from the Procedure Committee on Improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny, HC 800; and invites the Leader of the House and the Procedure Committee to put in place a pilot scheme to implement these proposals in respect of one or more bills before the end of the next session.— (Mr Knight.)

Written parliamentary questions

Resolved,
	That this House approves the recommendations relating to written parliamentary questions contained in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the Second Report from the Procedure Committee on Improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny, HC 800.— (Mr Knight.)

High Speed 2

Andrea Leadsom: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of High Speed 2.
	I am delighted to have the opportunity to open the debate, and I am particularly grateful to all the Members —in all parts of the House and on all sides of the debate —who have turned up to participate. It is an incredibly important debate, because it involves £32 billion of taxpayers’ money. I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is not present, because, being an eternal optimist, I believe that he is delaying his decision until December—as he certainly should—and is keen to listen to the debate as it progresses. I know that not just you, Mr Speaker, but many right hon. and hon. Members have taken a great interest in this subject. Let me mention in particular my hon. Friends the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright).
	It is fashionable for those who oppose HS2 to be dismissed as nimbys. Let me make it clear that I am here today not just as a concerned constituency MP but as someone with 25 years of experience in finance, including project finance, and that I am determined to defend the taxpayer against what I consider to be an unjustifiable and eye-wateringly expensive project. If the route went from Truro to Paddington, or from Leeds to Edinburgh, I would still be here today defending the taxpayer.
	When I first heard about HS2 I thought it was a superb idea, but 18 months later all the proposed benefits have fallen away one by one, and there is no hard evidence that spending £32 billion can truly be justified. For instance, there is no evidence that this project will solve the north-south divide. In fact, there is plenty of evidence from the experience in France and Germany, and from our own HS1, that high-speed trains can suck development out of the regions and into the major cities.
	I also have an intuitive concern about the point-to-point nature of the project. The north is not a place; it is a region. Those close to the terminals will benefit of course, but it is unclear how people outside those areas can directly benefit. I recently spoke to my former constituency chairman in the Knowsley South seat, which I contested in 2005, and his view is that Knowsley South will end up paying its share of the cost of this project but will get little, if any, benefit.

Paul Maynard: The north is not a region. It is made up of three regions—the north-west, Yorkshire and Humber and the north-east—all of which have their own identities, which I hope my hon. Friend will respect.

Andrea Leadsom: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and I certainly do respect the right of people in the north to economic regeneration. I am speaking as much for them as I am for people in Cornwall and the Isle of Wight when I say that £32 billion spent on this project is the wrong use of taxpayers’ money.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Andrea Leadsom: I would like to make some progress, if I may.
	There is no hard evidence that this project will reduce unemployment in the north. HS2’s own estimate of 30,000 new jobs—

Stephen Hammond: The estimate is 40,000.

Andrea Leadsom: The figure is 40,000, my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, but some 73% of those jobs will be generated in and around London, not in the north. Moreover, every one of those jobs will be associated with £300,000 in costs, which is about five times more than the cost of job creation in other infrastructure projects.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Andrea Leadsom: I want to make one further point before giving way again.
	On HS2’s green credentials, HS2 itself admits that at best the project is carbon neutral. That leaves me pondering whether £32 billion of taxpayers’ money spent on a project that essentially only cures the capacity problems on the west coast main line is good value for money. It blatantly is not. I am not alone in thinking that. Organisations including the RAC Foundation, the Institute of Economic Affairs and the TaxPayers Alliance seriously challenge the business case for HS2.

Angela Smith: London’s Crossrail was given the go-ahead by this House on a consensual basis. Surely what is good enough for London is good enough for the rest of the country?

Andrea Leadsom: I am glad the hon. Lady raises that point, because it is ludicrous nonsense. Anybody who has any knowledge whatever of assessing such projects and making sure they offer value for money would say it is nonsense. This is not our money; it is the taxpayers’ money and it belongs to the country. We should not spend money on HS2 on the grounds that we did so for Crossrail. That is just nonsense.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Andrea Leadsom: I want to make a little more progress, if I may.
	I hear arguments that lots of other countries have high-speed rail so we need it to be able to keep up and compete with them, but the truth is that France, Germany and China are very different from our country. They each have a far greater land mass and much longer distances between cities. Furthermore, their high-speed railways follow existing transport corridors, and their non-high speed trains are extremely slow, unlike our existing inter-city trains, which are technically high-speed, with a top speed of 125 mph.
	I also hear arguments that we should replicate the fabulous experiment with HS1. Yet a wealth of evidence suggests that commuter services running parallel to the HS1 link have become more expensive, have far more stops and far fewer trains running along the line, in order to subsidise HS1. Even the chief engineer of
	HS2 Ltd told me that, as a Kent commuter, he has had to get used to more expensive train fares in order to subsidise those using the HS1 service.
	If all else fails, we hear that killer argument, “This is about a vision for Britain. This is like the great Victorian railways. It is like the fabulous post second world war motorways.” I am sorry, but I just do not buy that argument. The Victorian railways were largely privately funded The motorways are fabulous, but they have benefited every town and village in this country, because they have junctions every few miles. By contrast, every family in Britain will pay £1,000 for HS2 but 99% of people in this country will use the service less than once a year, and the wealthiest will use it four times more often than the poorest. That is a massive skewing of scarce resources.

Mark Garnier: Does my hon. Friend agree that although £32 billion is a great deal to spend on an infrastructure project, it is probably a welcome sum to spend on the supply side of our economy? Does she further agree, however, that it could be better spent on more local projects, such as the Stourport relief road in Kidderminster?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we could have a fabulous relief road for £32 billion. He makes the serious point that there is a huge opportunity cost to spending this amount of money on HS2.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Andrea Leadsom: I will give way in a moment, but first I wish to discuss the business case for HS2. HS2 Ltd claims that there is a net benefit ratio of two, which means a £2 return for every £1 spent. That is pretty much the minimum we could expect from a rail project, but even that modest claim makes some enormous assumptions. For example, a core, but ludicrous, assumption is that the time spent on a train is completely wasted, so we can attribute a value in pounds to any minute saved on travel. That would not matter so much if it were not for the fact that more than 50% of the £20 billion return claimed for this project comes from the time savings. That is simply ludicrous.
	A second enormous assumption is made in the passenger forecasts. HS2’s forecasts are heroic when compared with Network Rail’s own assumptions over a similar period. Surely we should learn the lesson of history. By 2009 Eurostar had achieved only 37% of the passenger numbers forecast when the HS1 link was built. We simply cannot continue to make these massively optimistic forecasts. The Public Accounts Committee took the Department for Transport to task on this point, and the DFT agreed that it would put in far greater downside assumptions for its next infrastructure project.

Hugh Bayley: If the hon. Lady represented a constituency further away from London than Northamptonshire, she would value the time savings that would allow businessmen to meet their business contacts more quickly. Has she not seen the PricewaterhouseCoopers assessment that within three years of the line being completed the Government could cover their costs and get £6 billion or £7 billion in addition by floating the railway to the private sector?

Andrea Leadsom: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Has he seen the Mott MacDonald report showing that since the advent of wi-fi and the internet the value of time spent on a train has been increasing exponentially every year? It is ludicrous to assert that there is no value in time spent working on a train.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Andrea Leadsom: I wish to make some more progress. Families up and down the country are feeling the pinch desperately. We are in an economic crisis, yet this project is costing the taxpayer £1 billion even before a single piece of track is laid in 2015—that sum is just to pave the way for HS2.
	I wish now to discuss the ludicrous time frame. Nothing is going to get built before 2026. When I commute between Euston and Milton Keynes in peak hours, as I often do, it is not a case of, “Can I get a seat?” It is a case of, “Can I physically get standing room on the train?” There is a massive capacity problem right now, and it cannot wait until 2026. It certainly cannot wait for 21 years, until the full “Y” is completed. Man might not land on Mars by 2032, but it is entirely possible that there will be technological changes by then that mean that HS2 is out of date before it is even finished.

Angie Bray: Does my hon. Friend not accept, however, that HS2 was a manifesto promise that was extremely valuable to people like me who were campaigning against a third runway at Heathrow? We were going to put people on trains, not planes, and phase 2 of this project will deliver precisely that.

Andrea Leadsom: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. All I can say to her is that when the facts change, we should change our minds. HS2 has not fulfilled its early promise. We simply cannot say that we will spend £32 billion because we broadly scoped something out in our manifesto that looked as if it would deliver the earth.

Julian Huppert: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Andrea Leadsom: I will not give way again. I am sorry, but lots of people want to speak.
	I am no rail expert, but there are lots of people who are, and they have put forward a broad range of different options that the Government and the Department for Transport should consider as alternatives that would offer more jobs, and faster and greater capacity while improving our existing rail infrastructure. I want to mention a few. We could lengthen existing trains from nine carriages to 12, and we could convert more from first class to standard.

Stephen Hammond: rose —

Andrea Leadsom: I will not give way again.
	We could consider solving the bottlenecks and pinch points that are so frequent along routes that slow down the system and give us less capacity. We could consider reopening old branch lines, particularly those that would
	enable passengers to switch between the east coast and west coast main lines and the Chiltern line. That would solve part of the problem in the firewall argument. We could consider solving the artificial peaks in demand generated by our appalling fare structure. We could even consider a new line just between London Euston and Milton Keynes so that the west coast main line could be dedicated to taking passengers to the north of England far faster and on a far more frequent service.

Julie Hilling: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, because it strikes me that her argument is that HS2 is a bad, bad idea, but that it is all right if we build an extra line between London and Milton Keynes. Is she then saying that those of us who live in the north, the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside should not be allowed to travel on trains? I am bemused.

Andrea Leadsom: If the hon. Lady had listened, she would have heard that I said we should consider building a dedicated local line so that the west coast main line could be exclusively available to those wishing to travel fast to the north of England on the inter-city train. It is nonsense to say that we should build a dedicated £32 billion line instead of considering a proper solution to the capacity problem. The final potential solution we should be considering is giving the right spending priority to rolling out superfast broadband.
	Archie Norman, the chairman of ITV, has said:
	“Scrap HS2 now and announce instead £17 billion of spending…to bring about the biggest improvement in history of Britain’s existing railway.”
	I am genuinely sorry to be so at odds with my Government and with many Members over this project, but we must seriously consider whether spending £32 billion of taxpayers’ money on a project that will deliver nothing until 2026 is worth while. In my view, it is not. It is monumentally expensive and the time scales are so long that they become satirical. As a result, HS2 risks being a vast white elephant that is out of date before it is even completed.
	HS2 is not visionary, it is not green and it is definitely not economically sound. We can and must do better. I urge the Government, in the strongest possible terms, to reconsider this project so that it does not become a triumph of political will over economic sense.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), let me emphasise that in seconding the motion he should confine himself to no more than 10 minutes, although he is not obliged to speak for that length of time if he does not wish to do so. Thereafter, in light of the very large number of Members seeking to catch my eye, there will be a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Geoffrey Robinson: The purpose of asking yet again for a debate in the Chamber on high-speed rail was that, having had two very successful earlier debates in Westminster Hall, we knew that there was a great deal of interest throughout the House among Members representing virtually all
	the constituencies that have an interest in it. I am very pleased to see the remarkable attendance we have this afternoon, and to follow the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who has just opened the debate.
	Those who attended the demonstration in Old Palace Yard this morning will have seen that there was a good turnout and a lively response from lorry drivers and others in relation to what we still call HS2. I am pleased to say that one lot from your constituency, Mr Speaker, remarked that they were anxious to speak to your good self about it, and I carry their best wishes and thanks to you. I said that you would almost certainly be in the Chair for the debate today, so I am pleased to see that you are indeed there.
	The various points that have consistently been made against this project remain, but they have not been answered in debate or by the Government. The hon. Lady covered virtually all those points in her opening remarks. I am limited for time, and I intend to stay well within the 10 minutes because I know that a lot of Members wish to speak, but let me say that although the point about people being local or nimbyish about this issue is fair, I do not think that any MP who sticks up for his constituency should be at all apologetic about it. That is what we are sent here for, and if we do not do it, why are we here?
	We have to take into account the national dimension, but I am prepared to say that I, and my Labour colleagues from Stoke and Coventry, certainly will not benefit from this project at all. I can see the arguments for Manchester, York, Leeds and other areas, which are well represented on the Opposition side, but it seems to me that we are doing things the wrong way around. I can see some benefits—although not the regional benefits that the Government claim—for Manchester, Leeds in particular, and York of being connected to a high-speed link to Birmingham and from there to London, but I think we should start the whole “Y” the other way around. We should start the line where it is most needed and most appreciated—from the north to the south. What is very clear, if we are honest about this, is that we do not desperately need the line from London to Birmingham. We are well served with trains every 20 minutes, and we are only going to get 30 minutes off the journey at best.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Geoffrey Robinson: I will in a moment if my hon. Friend will hang on just a tick. I have only got 10 minutes, and time taken now will shorten someone else’s time.
	We really do not need this project. What we need is for the pinch points to be relieved and some of the capacity bottlenecks to be relieved, and we could get the whole capacity increase we need on that line. Centro, which is responsible for the west midlands portion of the line, has said that it desperately needs that to be done now. That is the way to do it, not to wait until—

Richard Burden: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Geoffrey Robinson: I will give way in a moment, but I know what my hon. Friend is going to say because he represents a Birmingham constituency. I take those points too, but
	on the argument about this being a regional policy, let me say that any remotely sensible study that has been done on it says that 75% of the jobs are going to be created in the south-east, so we should forget the idea that it is a regional policy: that does not stack up. It is a convenience for certain metropolitan centres in the north, and the idea is that if ever it gets up to Edinburgh and Glasgow it could be a spinal cord that unites the country despite the tensions we feel at present—so why not start it up there? Why not start it from Leeds or York? That is what needs doing—and urgently—but of course they will not do that, because everyone knows that the subsidy for that area would be enormous and could not be justified. It can be justified only for the small London-Birmingham stretch where the subsidy will be highest, and it will not benefit ordinary travellers in any sense. It will be subsidised to a massive extent by the taxpayer and, by those businessmen, and others—

Mark Lazarowicz: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Geoffrey Robinson: I know that my hon. Friend has been trying to get in, so I will give way just this once and then I will make progress.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Some of his points about where the benefits would flow with high-speed rail are important, but surely what he is assuming is that people would just build the line and there would be stations but nothing else would happen. The whole point is that high-speed rail offers opportunity for much more comprehensive economic planning built around a high-speed rail network. It is not just a high-speed railway and stations on their own; it is part of a much wider approach that is required.

Geoffrey Robinson: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend talk about economic planning. I think that, sadly, that went out in 1966, when the Labour Government ditched the national plan. Let us be hard-headed and realistic about this. HS2 will have some benefits, and certainly it will help businesses to travel more quickly to London, but that is about all we can say. If I were a Manchester MP I am sure I would be supporting it, but below there it does not make any sense at all.

Julie Hilling: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Geoffrey Robinson: I am running out of time, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend once.

Julie Hilling: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, because I want to challenge his view that there is no benefit for Birmingham. I would much prefer the track to start in the north, but the reality is that the capacity issue is on the bottom part of the line and that if we do not do something to free up capacity there—and the bodged bits that people are talking about doing would not be adequate in the future—we will not have local trains running either.

Geoffrey Robinson: I do not accept that at all, and the hon. Lady should look at what Centro and others have said. There is a capacity problem. The Government’s capacity projections are way over the top, just as they were for HS1, which was the biggest flop ever. Their capacity projections said that the minimum would be a fifth of
	the maximum, but they could not even get the capacity up to that level. It lost money from day one, and it was flogged off recently to someone in Canada who has no interest in it at all, at a whopping loss of £2 billion or £3 billion. That is the truth.

Richard Burden: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Geoffrey Robinson: No, I will not give way any more.

Richard Burden: You are talking about Birmingham.

Geoffrey Robinson: I live next door to Birmingham; I know all about Birmingham.

Richard Burden: Would you like to hear from Birmingham at all?

Geoffrey Robinson: I just mention in passing that when I was being selected—those few years ago—

Karen Lumley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Robinson: I will give way in a moment—no, I will not give way, sorry.
	As a prospective Coventry candidate, I was told, “You’ve got to remember one thing, Geoffrey: the only good thing that comes out of Birmingham is the Coventry road”—but I will leave that there.
	In all seriousness, with £33 billion of capital expenditure, this is the largest capital project that this country will ever have engaged in. That money could be better spent elsewhere. Dealing with the capacity problems between London and Birmingham and increasing capacity by 47% can be done now. The plans are there; they are shovel ready.

Julie Hilling: That will not solve the problem.

Geoffrey Robinson: It will. Taking a realistic view of capacity, of course it will solve the problem, particularly if we are set back by a 16% output gap, thanks to the recession. Even the Government have had to revise their plans. Does my hon. Friend really believe that we will have more than a 50% increase in capacity in the next 10 years before the project comes in? We need an increase now. We can get 50% by lengthening platforms, without the huge tear-up in London and elsewhere, or the cost that HS2 would involve.
	I will mention a few other points that I think are relevant. I happen to agree with those who feel that HS2 would involve the unnecessary tearing up of some of the most beautiful country that we have. This morning, Mr Speaker, your constituents were waxing lyrical about their village. I feel for those who will have their houses smashed and repossessed—all for no good. If we were at war and had to move ammunition, as we probably did in those days, there would be a case for HS2. There is no case now. As I have said, it is not the best way to increase capacity. That could be done in the shorter term and much more cheaply. It will not benefit ordinary people, and it will not help the north-south divide.
	Above all—I say this in all seriousness to my colleagues from Manchester, Leeds, York and others who are here today—I fear that the real danger is that the line will not get built up there. They will find that the cost of getting the line to Birmingham will be blown up beyond all the estimates. Everyone will heave a sigh of relief and say, “We don’t have to go on. This is the profitable part.” In all likelihood, that is what will happen.
	As for the environment, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire made it quite clear that even the Government, and now Greengauge and the other lobby action groups in favour—paid by the Government, of course, or by the company itself—have admitted that HS2 will not do anything for the environment. One is at a loss to know why the Government are doing this. The whole cover was blown by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), who said that the Government reached a deal to oppose the third runway at Heathrow and have HS2 instead. It was a £30 billion election bribe. Whether or not it won them any seats I do not know, but the cover was blown earlier, in that intervention on the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire.
	I put it the House that I do not think that many hon. Members are in the mood to listen the arguments today. It is perfectly legitimate for them to seek to push their constituency interests, but let us go from legitimate constituency interests to a sane, objective assessment of the problems of the capital project, and the hon. Lady exposed the myths that lie behind that project.

Tony Baldry: That was a touching cameo of the brotherly love between Birmingham and Coventry Labour Members of Parliament. I am sure that if we had the opportunity to attend parliamentary Labour party meetings, we would see it displayed every week.
	Time is short, and I do not intend to repeat what I have said in previous debates on High Speed 2. If hon. Members or others are interested, they can find what I have said previously on my website—I am not one of the Twitterati, but I am catching up with websites—at www.tonybaldry.co.uk/tag/hs2. As the House will know, the Transport Committee is undertaking an inquiry on the principles of HS2. I hope that it will pay regard to two points. The first is capacity. It is unclear to me whether the purpose of HS2 is to enable more people from cities such as Manchester and Leeds to travel by rail to London and back, or to allow people to travel faster to London at greater expense. All the statistics show train use increasing. That is probably not surprising, given the ever-increasing cost of petrol. Like other Members, I frequently take long-distance inter-city trains to see family members or, increasingly, as part of my other duties in the House, to visit cathedral cities. Nowadays, irrespective of the time of day at which I travel, the trains are always full, so it strikes me that what is needed on our rail network is greater capacity.
	Greater capacity may mean somewhat unglamorous improvements to services that we already use—improvements such as longer trains, extended platforms and improved signalling. Rail campaigners in my constituency argue that if we need a new railway line for capacity, we should
	“make the line compatible with existing rolling stock so it can be used to ease congestion on the whole network when required. The stand-alone design, (of HS2), means that if the West Coast
	mainline gets blocked, for some reason, you will not be able to reroute trains down the new line”.
	The second issue that I hope the Select Committee will consider with great care is the business case for HS2. This is obviously a matter of concern to everyone.

Louise Ellman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reference to the work of the Select Committee. It has not yet reported on High Speed 2, so I do not feel that I am in a position to give any conclusions—they are not there yet—but I can confirm that the issues that the Select Committee is considering very carefully have to do with capacity, impact on the economy and environment, and value for money. There are a wide variety of views on all those issues, and the Select Committee is looking at all of them in the round. We will report in due course.

Tony Baldry: Of course, and as one of those who argued strongly that the Select Committee should undertake the inquiry, I have absolutely no doubt that the Committee will deal with the issues with great diligence. I am sure that the House looks forward to debating the Committee’s report and the Government’s response to it. I hope that the debate can take place here in the main Chamber, and not in Westminster Hall, which is where such debates are often held.
	As the hon. Lady says, clearly one of the issues that the Committee has to look at is the business case. A considerable sum is being spent, and of course the money spent on HS2 will not be available for investment elsewhere in rail infrastructure; £30 billion is a very substantial amount, and we all need to be confident that the business case will stack up. Conservative Members who entered the House when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, as I did, always had a very high regard for the advice of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Over the years, it has readily embraced new ideas, so it is sobering that its verdict on HS2 is that
	“There is a significant risk that High Speed 2…will become the latest in a long series of government big-project disasters”.
	The business case for HS2 appears to be based on a number of assertions, such as people do not work on trains. I hope that the Select Committee will investigate those assertions. I understand that there are suggestions in official documents that the effect of HS2 will be to benefit London and the south, in terms of jobs and growth, rather than cities such as Manchester and Leeds. The contribution of the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) demonstrates that many Members representing inner cities are concerned about the differential regional impacts of HS2. I hope that the Select Committee will call for and examine those papers, as it is in a better position than most of us to challenge and evaluate the evidence on HS2.

Angela Smith: The Northern Way did a lot of work on this and pointed out that the economic benefit of HS2 would be as great for the north as it would be for London and the south east. The key point is that the economic benefit is the sum of the whole and that UK plc will be the beneficiary. The other important point about HS2 is that it will help to rebalance the economy.

Tony Baldry: It is really important, for the benefit of the whole House, that the Select Committee should consider all these issues. None of us has had the benefit
	of hearing all the evidence and there is a slight danger—as with liquorice allsorts—that Members will pick only the evidence they want. If we as a nation are to spend £30 billion, I am concerned that it should be money well spent. I am sure that the Committee will diligently consider all the evidence and report back to the House. The hon. Lady represents a Manchester constituency—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I apologise. She represents a Sheffield constituency—
	[Interruption.] 
	Well, it is a Yorkshire constituency. She clearly has a preconceived view that HS2 will somehow benefit her constituents. I hope that she will reflect on all the evidence submitted to the Committee. She shakes her head. I hope that she will not dismiss it and that the whole House will have the opportunity to consider the matter in the round.
	Even if the nation’s finances start to improve substantially after 2015, as we all hope they will, £30 billion is still a very substantial sum. We have a collective duty to ensure that such a significant sum is spent in the best possible way. My concern is that the project started very much as a vanity project. The previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), went up to Birmingham before the general election to announce the project in the hope that it would win him a few votes there. I simply do not think that that is a good way to start such a massive project.

Richard Burden: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that the Select Committee looks at all aspects of this and follows the evidence—that is what Select Committees are for. He mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) who used the word “we” rather liberally when referring to the west midlands. I should point out for the benefit of the House that my hon. Friend’s views are not universally shared in the west midlands, in Birmingham, or even in Coventry.

Tony Baldry: That demonstrates the divisions in the Labour party in the west midlands, but I think we all agree that the House should listen carefully to all the evidence.

Roger Godsiff: Many people are using public transport more these days, particularly the railways, despite the extortionate fares that train operating companies extract from customers for the cheap but not very cheerful service they usually get, particularly on commuter lines. I very much welcome the increased use of public transport, because it reduces carbon emissions and is generally better for the environment.
	Two acts of monumental folly have affected the railway industry in the past 50 years. The first was the decision in the early 1960s by the Conservative Government of the day to let Dr Beeching butcher Britain’s network of branch lines, which had linked communities across the country. The second was the decision by another Conservative Government to privatise the railways in the early ’90s, a decision that even the arch-privatiser, Mrs Thatcher, had the good sense not to pursue. Of course, this has meant that the taxpayer has been paying vastly more in subsidy to train operating companies and to the network than was ever paid pro rata to British Rail. I hope that the coalition and the Minister will not, over this decision, make it three monumental follies in a row.
	The coalition proposes that we spend £32 billion by 2026 on a new rail project from London to Birmingham, which then goes on to Leeds and Manchester by 2032, allegedly saving 30 minutes’ travelling time from Birmingham and 50 minutes from Manchester. The fact that business people invariably travel first class and can use their computers and communications networks while travelling, while others will remain in Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester and hold meetings using video conferencing facilities, is dismissed by the vested interest groups, which see a massive tranche of public money that they would like to access.
	At a time when ordinary people are facing massive reductions in their living standards, living under threat of losing their jobs and watching their community services such as libraries, Sure Start centres and centres for elderly people being axed, we are prepared to commit £17 billion, the estimated cost of the line from London to Birmingham, in order to get business people from Birmingham to London 30 minutes sooner—always assuming that there are no high-speed leaves on the line and the high-speed signalling equipment actually works.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Roger Godsiff: Time is limited, so my hon. Friend must forgive me.
	No wonder an online survey by the Birmingham Post showedthat 75% of respondents were against the project.
	What other inflated claims are made for the project? It is said that it will help to diminish regional inequalities and promote growth, but there is no evidence of that. If we look at what has happened in Japan, Spain and France, we find that the high-speed connections there have benefited the hub much more than the outer communities.
	What about the effect of the project on towns and cities that High Speed 2 will bypass? The deputy leader of Coventry city council says that the plans for High Speed 2 send a clear message that
	“Coventry is not a place to stop.”
	Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) said about Birmingham, I suggest that that might not be a bad idea.
	Where high-speed trains do work is in countries with large land mass, but in other, smaller countries they take resources from humbler but more needed schemes, such as the upgrading of existing networks, signalling and infrastructure. Unfortunately, however, we all know as politicians that unveiling a new signal box tends to appeal less than inaugurating a futuristic new service. The project’s other exaggerated claims have already been dealt with.

Hugh Bayley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Roger Godsiff: Time is very limited.

Hugh Bayley: It gives you extra time.

Roger Godsiff: All right.

Hugh Bayley: Does my hon. Friend realise that the project is not a zero-sum game? As in any business, if one invests in a new product, one gets new customers and generates economic growth. We need investment in the current network, for sure, but that is no reason not to go ahead with High Speed 2.

Roger Godsiff: I am all in favour of infrastructure investment, but I can think of a whole host of infrastructure investment on which £32 billion could be spent in my constituency, my hon. Friend’s constituency and many other constituencies. This project is not good value for money, and it has not been thought through.

Julian Lewis: Surely it is a zero-sum game, as the hon. Gentleman said earlier, because, at a time when we in constituencies that are not directly affected by this railway project are nevertheless having to fight, for example, to save hospitals from closure due to cuts, it seems sheer madness to look at this level of investment instead of at saving our services.

Roger Godsiff: I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, because I agree.
	Putting aside my views on the subject, I shall share with the House the views of a Manchester-based businessman who came to London on Tuesday for a meeting of the Surface Engineering Association, an excellent organisation that looks after the interests of companies operating in that segment of manufacturing industry. I asked him how long it had taken to travel down to London that day, and he said “Two hours, eight minutes.” He asked why I wanted to know and I told him about the upcoming debate on High Speed 2. He responded that getting to London from Manchester 50 minutes quicker did not really bother him because he used train time to work on his computer and to make calls. He ventured the opinion that if the Government had that sort of money to spend, they should do something about the bottlenecks on the M6, as well as improving the transport infrastructure in many of our cities.
	Those views are similar to the majority of those expressed to me by business people in my constituency. Not one business person has come to me and said, “Thirty minutes is going to make the difference between my company succeeding or not.” It is a fallacy to believe otherwise. However, over the years, plenty of constituents have come to me and said that there should be better public transport facilities within Birmingham—an underground system such as the one in London, a tram system such as those that operate in European cites, improved bus services, or new or reopened train lines and stations within and around the city. Those are the types of improvements that the people of Birmingham want, not a vastly expensive link between London and Birmingham.
	People have expressed a great deal of concern about the damage that this will cause in the Chilterns and Warwickshire. The impression has been given that only people who live there are concerned about those areas. In fact, many people living in Birmingham travel to the countryside, especially elderly people in my constituency who have enjoyed the benefits of the free or concessionary fares introduced by the Labour Government. They
	enjoy the countryside; they are certainly not part of the “carpet the countryside with concrete” brigade, and neither am I.
	We have had many vanity projects in this country that have been a disaster. I hope the Minister will think again about this project, because I believe that if she goes ahead, it will be a disaster.

Esther McVey: The temperature of this debate is running high. In a densely populated country such as England, it will never be easy to come to a decision about transport infrastructure going right the way through the country. That said, just because a decision is hard and opposition is loud does not mean we should shy away from hearing the points made and coming to that decision.
	I have listened to a lot of what has been said about the differences between the north and the south, with Members saying that High Speed 2 will not help—but it will. I come to this debate as an MP from the north-west and, in particular, as an MP from Merseyside. This, to us, is infrastructure we need. We are not going to develop because of this infrastructure, but without it our growth will be stymied. As Government Members, we have all voted for a redistribution of wealth—a change from dependence on the public sector to the private sector. We in the north-west need this infrastructure to allow our private sector to grow so that we stop being overly reliant on the public sector. To all intents and purposes, High Speed 2 was meant to aid the decentralisation of that economic power base.
	Let me turn to the figures. Yes, the cost of High Speed 2 at £30 billion is a huge amount of money. However, the fare revenue will bring down that cost to £17 billion. Private sector investment is expected to cover a lot of the cost on key parts of the network such as station developments. In response to a recent question of mine, the Secretary of State said that High Speed 2 in its entirety will bring in £44 billion. The latest review from KPMG puts tax receipts alone at between £6 billion and £10 billion per year. That means that High Speed 2 will easily pay for itself. We have not heard about any of that today.

Graham Stringer: The previous three speakers said that one of the disadvantages of the project is that it has come out of a political agreement among the three parties. I think that that is a massive advantage. It is because we do not have political agreement that we have the lowest motorway density in western Europe, a lack of airport capacity where we need it, and in the north-west a railway system running on timetables worse than in Gladstonian times. The country will benefit from this project because the three parties agree with it. Does the hon. Lady agree?

Esther McVey: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We need cross-party support and we also need cross-country support.
	I appreciate that infrastructure is not an end in itself, but it is a means to an end. It opens up areas to opportunity and it is for those areas to seize upon that opportunity and capitalise on it. In considering the High Speed 2 development, we must look at the northern
	hub and connectivity across the north. We must look at the Y shape of the line and link in not just Manchester and Leeds, but Liverpool.

Andrew Murrison: I fully support high-speed rail, as does my hon. Friend. However, in the context of connectivity, does she accept that the forgotten English region is the south-west? Although one can support this project, it must be accepted that any available funds elsewhere need to be funnelled in that direction and to the west of England to ensure that we have the connectivity that she is describing.

Esther McVey: I do not disagree at all. I believe that we need greater connectivity across the board. Equally, this project is not starting until 2017 and will go on for two decades. I would like that to be brought forward, not just for the north-west but for the south.
	I want to look at where Merseyside needs to develop and what development we are stopping. Official figures for 2009 recorded that 48 million UK day visitors went to Liverpool. It was the sixth most popular destination in the UK. The number of visitors is projected to grow to 55 million by 2013. With overcapacity on the trains, that will not happen. This is not just about speed; it is fundamentally about capacity.
	There is also the Liverpool super-port freight development, which is being led by the private investors, Peel. It is set to develop a £300 million in-river berth, which will increase port capacity from 700,000 containers a year to 3 million, creating more than 4,000 new jobs. We need connectivity, warehouse storage and logistics. We want to grow all of those things. This is about rebalancing the economy. Of course there will be jobs in building the infrastructure, but there will also be key jobs in freight and movement. Liverpool should be positioning itself as the port of the north. I have always said that without our ports—whether the cruise terminal or the freight port—we are only a 180° city or half a city. We need to open up links to our waterways to ensure that we are a 360° city.

Steven Baker: I just make the tiny point that HS2 will not carry freight, because freight would make the trains too heavy to stop from high speeds. I just wanted to check that my hon. Friend was aware of that.

Esther McVey: No, there will be increased freight capacity, and that is key. There has been a 56% increase in the amount of freight over the past eight years. We have to accommodate that and develop the capacity that we have.
	In conclusion, High Speed 2 is vital, as are the northern hub, the connection with Liverpool, our ports and opening up the UK as a whole. There is a financial argument, which people have made. I have given the latest statistics from KPMG. High Speed 2 is about uniting the country, and about spreading wealth and opportunity to areas that desperately need them. My only concern is that it should happen sooner rather than later.

Frank Dobson: Besides being the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, I am the Member for King’s Cross and Euston. I feel like I have
	been here before. About 20 years ago, the sort of people who are now proposing HS2 were proposing that the channel tunnel link should come into a vast concrete cavern to be excavated under King’s Cross station. Many local people opposed it, and when the project team asked what I suggested, I said, “You could use St Pancras, it would be a much better idea.” That was denounced as ridiculous for a time, but in due course St Pancras International was opened and is probably the most magnificent station in the whole world.
	Now we have the proposition of HS2. I say to those who are in favour of it that to bring it in to Euston is just about as stupid as the King’s Cross concrete box idea. Euston is already overcrowded, and getting to and from it by either bus or tube is extremely difficult. There are no proposals to improve that. Also, Euston is not on the Heathrow Express line and is not going to be on Crossrail. In recognition of that, the people behind HS2 are proposing the parkway station at Wormwood Scrubs, hereinafter to be known as Old Oak Common, which is on the Heathrow Express and will be on Crossrail. That suggests that they accept that it would be a good idea to have that station as the terminus if HS2 is built. I say that from a strategic and passenger point of view, but I do not pretend that it is my basic point of view. I try to represent the people in the constituency that I have represented for 30-odd years, which I am proud to do.
	The proposal involves the demolition of the houses and homes of more than 350 of my constituents. Their attitude, and mine, is not nimby—“not in my back yard”—but “not through my front room”, because that is what is being proposed. If HS2 is to be built, it would be totally unacceptable from a local point of view, and silly from a national point of view, to bring it into Euston.

Graham Stringer: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Frank Dobson: No, I shall not, because I want other people to get their speeches in.
	I am particularly concerned to end the planning blight that now afflicts the people who live in the area affected and those in the area behind it, Primrose Hill, who may also be disturbed by the developments. I therefore wrote to the Secretary of State asking what guarantees he was willing to give about suitable alternative accommodation for the people affected. I asked whether it would be in the neighbourhood; whether they would remain tenants of the council; how soon such alternative accommodation would be provided; whether people would have to live in temporary accommodation while permanent accommodation was built; what security of tenure they would have; and what the effect would be on their rents and service charges. I got a letter back from him saying, “Oh, all that will need to be looked into in the fullness of time.” As far as I am concerned, that leaves 350 of my constituents on planning blight death row, and we have to do something about that. There is absolutely no reason why the Minister could not say today that she can offer all the guarantees that those people want, and that those guarantees will be one of the conditions of any agreement if the mad proposal finally goes ahead and HS2 comes into Euston.

John Pugh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Frank Dobson: No, I want to sit down as quickly as I can so that other people can get in.
	I believe that Euston is a stupid place to use as the terminus, even from the point of view of those who favour High Speed 2, and that it is a disastrous proposition from the point of view of the people I represent.

Stephen Hammond: It is a great honour and pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing it. She has allowed everybody who has a point of view the chance to make their case, expose the arguments of the other side and put forward their own.
	In the last Parliament I was fortunate enough, along with the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), who is in her place, to be part of the shadow transport team who were the first authors of a major high-speed rail debate, and indeed of a high-speed rail policy.
	The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) is absolutely right that there is a principled case for opposition to the scheme. My constituents are affected, as are those of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). What is not a principled position, however, is to say that there is no economic, environmental, financial or travel case for high-speed rail. There clearly is a case, although its merits might differ according to differing points of view.
	I have read both the rail package 2 study and the “A Better Railway for Britain” study, the proposals in which are often referred to as an alternative to high-speed rail. I shall briefly examine—because I want to move on to the positives, rather than the negatives—the proposals in the latter study for overcoming the capacity issues on the west coast main line. It proposes to introduce 12 car trains, grade-separated junctions and an additional track south of Nuneaton. It claims that the costs, at best, would be £2.06 billion, but it takes that figure from another, flawed document. I do not know whether those who produced the study have ever spoken to any of the rail operators, but it will be extremely difficult to integrate 12 cars into 11-car sets.

Paul Maynard: Does my hon. Friend agree that rail package 2 plus and RP2 both admit that they do not tackle the peak-hour demand, which is the crucial concern of many of us travelling on the west coast main line?

Stephen Hammond: Absolutely. However, so much in “A Better Railway for Britain” is mere assertion. The good points, though, are like that television programme from so long ago, “Not Only… But Also”. Not only do we need to do the things mentioned in RP2, but also we need high-speed rail. The case for high-speed rail is clear. It revolves primarily around capacity. Official sources say that the west coast main line will be full by 2020, although some say 2026, while unofficial sources say 2015. The question, then, is about how we add capacity. We either build a classic new line or we build one that uses some of the new techniques and signalling. The latter is called high-speed rail.

Andrea Leadsom: Does my hon. Friend accept that if we are going to make the case for “not only but also”, as he described it, the case for HS2 needs be made after the “not only”? In other words, if we are trying to make an economic argument, we have to add on the incremental improvements to be made and then justify HS2 expense on top of that.

Stephen Hammond: There is one fallacy with my hon. Friend’s argument. Simply speeding up the current network and alleviating some minor problems is no substitution for high-speed rail. It is clear that high-speed rail would at least double capacity, and on certain parts of the route, the capacity increase would be significantly more than that.
	The Y-shaped high-speed network across the UK would bring a benefit-cost ratio of about 2:6. For the London to Birmingham section, the ratio would be 2:0. That shows that the case for going further north becomes more compelling and adds to the economic benefit. The proposals in “A Better Railway for Britain” would have a benefit-cost ratio of 1:4. Those ratios prove that high-speed rail is significantly better than some of these hotch-potch alternatives in “A Better Railway for Britain”.

Dan Byles: Does my hon. Friend accept that between the two iterations of the business case in March 2010 and February 2011, the Government had to slash their estimate of the benefit-cost ratio by 40%? That was the first time that the business case was prodded. If another 40% comes off it when it is prodded again, it will be proven to have been economically unviable.

Stephen Hammond: When the business case is re-examined, the key thing will be: what happens if it improves? The more important point is that the benefit-cost ratio for HS2 is overwhelmingly ahead of any of the other proposals. That is true.
	The economic case is overwhelming. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) eloquently set out some of the issues in the north, but the point is that in the construction phase alone, high-speed rail will generate 40,000 jobs along the route. That does not include any calculation of the ripple supply-chain effect, which will certainly be felt. More than that, the combination of HS2 and the northern hub, which has already been referred to, will create a new economic conurbation in the north and allow much quicker access between the north and London. That connectivity is hugely important.
	When the business community criticises politicians, it says that all too often one of the reasons why it does not invest and why there are barriers to growth is that we, the politicians, have not put in place the appropriate infrastructure. This scheme is the appropriate infrastructure for the 21st century.
	The environmental impact cannot be understated. The Department for Transport currently estimates that the project is carbon-neutral, and I absolutely accept that. However, I am aware that the Campaign for Better Transport is doing some new research into the impact of taking extra freight by rail, which, when combined with the transference effect from railways, I am led to believe points to the conclusion that the carbon footprint will be significantly reduced.

Christopher Pincher: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Hammond: No, I am sorry; I have only a minute and a half left.
	There is a myth that local services will suffer as a result of High Speed 2. That is not true: local services are already at capacity. We need to do other things, but high-speed rail is not part of that argument. That is a diversionary tactic. There is also a myth, which has been brought up time after time today, that there is a £30 billion cost. Yes, of course the scheme will cost £30 billion, but Crossrail is currently costing us £2 billion a year. Crossrail will have a huge impact on London and create huge benefits for the commuting area of London and the south-east. If we look at the cost of Crossrail against the annual cost of High Speed 2, we see that they are actually a substitution for one another. It is quite clear that we can invest the £2 billion a year in rail infrastructure that the Government have costed for without affecting other investment.
	The case is a good one and there are overwhelming reasons for it. The network is at capacity, the economy will benefit, the scheme will be at least carbon-neutral and, given that it does not start until after 2017, High Speed 2 is affordable.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. In view of the level of interest in this debate, I must inform the House that after the next speech the time limit for Back-Bench speeches will be reduced to four minutes in order to accommodate as many contributing colleagues as possible.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak in this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on introducing it. We have had debates on the subject before in Westminster Hall, and I shall have to make some of the points that I made in those debates again, because they are significant.
	I am a passionate believer in railways and have been for decades. Even when railways were unfashionable, I believed that they were the transport mode of the future, and so they have proved to be. Indeed, there is absolutely no doubt that we will have more railways in future. I believe that we should invest heavily in railways and in additional routes, but I remain a sceptic about HS2. I applaud in particular the speeches by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry)—who has just left the Chamber—and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff), who made many important points that I will not necessarily repeat.
	The scheme is expensive, but if it was worth while I would support that expense. It also has an opportunity cost: we should be doing things now, not in decades to come. As the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire said, even getting on a train to Milton Keynes is a problem now, let alone finding a seat, and the same is true elsewhere. We need heavy investment in all sorts of railway schemes, but not necessarily this one, which will come a long time in the future, not now. However, it will not be necessary even in the future. The point has been
	made about Britain being a densely populated country, and many towns that need to be served by high-speed trains would not be. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) is quite right that he would not benefit at all from HS2. Indeed, getting to and from the station is a much more significant problem for those living even on the outskirts of Birmingham than getting from Birmingham to London.
	We need more capacity, but for that we need to upgrade existing routes. For example, there is no question but that the east coast main line needs to be upgraded; indeed, I had a long talk about that with the chief executive at our recent conference. However, all we need is an additional viaduct to quadruple the track at Welwyn, a passing loop at Peterborough and a crossover at Newark, and then we will have no problem at all with 140 mph trains running from London to Edinburgh. To build a high-speed line carrying no more than two or three trains a day that far would be nonsense. We have the capacity now, provided we upgrade the route a little.

Anne Main: I completely concur with the hon. Gentleman. The same train line goes through our constituencies. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) that we should be looking at many other areas in which to invest. We could move many more passengers around the country. The hon. Gentleman is making a perfect argument for looking at this matter again.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the hon. Lady for her support. We have neighbouring constituencies and share the rail route that runs through our towns.
	In the end, the problem comes down to the west coast main line, which needs the signalling to be upgraded to the most modern standard, more train paths, and to get the freight off the line. Freight and passengers do not mix. Freight trains move more slowly, and they damage the track more than the lighter passenger trains, so we need to invest in a dedicated freight line running up the backbone of Britain, from the channel tunnel to Glasgow, linking all the major conurbations. I have supported that scheme for a long time, and it would take 5 million lorries a year off the roads, as well as removing all the freight traffic from the east and west coast main lines. The passenger routes need to be separated from the freight routes and upgraded to improve capacity. I believe that that is what we need, and that is why I am sceptical about the HS2 scheme.
	That freight route could be built in four years for as little as £6 billion, and it would cause no environmental difficulty because it could use existing under-utilised routes and old track bed could be brought back into use. That, and a couple of tunnels, would make the whole thing work. I have made this case time and again in the Chamber over the past 14 years, and I have mentioned it to the Minister of State. I have presented a paper on it to the Transport Select Committee. I also know engineers who have worked on the scheme and worked the details out. It just needs to be done. Thirty of us had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport in the previous Government to put our case
	for the scheme, but the Department was so hostile because a small section of our proposed route overlapped the route it wanted to use for HS2. Even if HS2 is built, the lines could be paralleled at that point. There would not be a problem.
	We need a freight route that is capable of taking full-scale lorry trailers on trains. That could never be done on existing routes without incurring the prohibitive cost of raising all the tunnels and bridges throughout the network. We need a track that has the capacity to take double-stack containers. Most of our existing routes cannot even take standard 9 feet 6 inch containers. We also need a track that has the capacity to take continental trains, which currently cannot get through our platforms because they are too wide or the gauge is too big. We need to be able to accommodate trains travelling from, say, Rome to Birmingham carrying San Pellegrino water.

Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument for a major extension of the rail network. Given that one of his reasons for opposing HS2 is its cost, will he give us an estimate of the cost of all the various improvements and new lines that he has just described?

Kelvin Hopkins: Some two or three years ago, we had lunch with some people from Bechtel, one of the train manufacturing companies. We were talking about a cost of £4 billion or £5 billion at that time. We talked about an outside figure of £6 billion, but the Bechtel representative looked at the scheme and said he could do it for £3 billion. That would be a fraction of the cost even of Crossrail, which I support. This is not about cost, however; it is about whether HS2 is necessary. I think that we could achieve the desired result by doing it differently. We could upgrade existing routes to serve all the intervening towns, and we could provide the necessary capacity by getting all the freight off those lines and on to a new freight route. I ask the Department for Transport to take our scheme seriously, because that is what we need for the future.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the four-minute limit on each Back-Bench contribution now applies.

Julian Huppert: We in the Liberal Democrats have long supported high-speed rail, and we are delighted that the Government of whom we are part are going to deliver on that commitment. A sustainable transport system fit for the 21st century was at the heart of our 2008 policy paper, “Fast track Britain”, our 2010 election manifesto and now the coalition agreement. We need increased capacity on our railways. Over the past 50 years, the length of our rail network has roughly halved, but since 1980 the number of passenger journeys has doubled. Quite predictably, that has fuelled overcrowding and led to eye-watering price hikes.
	The extra capacity that the HS2 project will provide is not a luxury; it is a cold, hard necessity that we cannot afford to ignore. Network Rail estimates that by 2024 the existing line to Birmingham and the north-west will
	be full. Serious congestion on commuter services at the southern end of the line is already harming passenger welfare. Unfortunately, the key issue of capacity crisis has been obscured by an obsession with journey times. Yes, speed is important, but capacity and the number of trains is as important, if not more so.
	High-speed rail will release huge amounts of capacity on existing lines: demand will no longer outstrip supply on parallel train routes. We need that capacity. The only alternative to building the high-speed railway line would be to build the same line, but for trains to run at slow speed. That would save us a small amount—about 9% of the construction costs—but we would not get the benefits of high speed.
	We have heard that there is no need for a new line, that the few shortfalls can be tweaked and that we can cope with the inevitable increase in traffic. That is simply not the case. These proposals do not take proper account of the decades of upgrade work that would be required, with no alternative train line that could be fully used, or of the huge impact on reliability. If every possible train path is used on a line, there will be no capacity to cope if a single train is delayed: it throws everything out of whack. We need that capacity. Having massive infrastructure works on an already overcrowded line is not an option. It is not even a quick fix; it is completely unrealistic.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point. Would not the undoubtedly massive disruption be a major negative economic factor to be included in the business case on the consequences of a high-speed line or of trying to upgrade existing lines?

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point; indeed, those consequences should be taken into account.
	Hon. Members who oppose High Speed 2 should be aware that they are arguing for increased overcrowding on the west coast main line, increasing the chances of delayed commuter services, committing themselves to a disruptive and ineffective infrastructure programme, and delaying by only a matter of years the inevitable construction of a second line through the country.

Jo Swinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Julian Huppert: One last time, yes.

Jo Swinson: I thank my hon. Friend, and I feel that I should declare an interest as a regular user of the west coast main line who hopes to get home before midnight tonight. Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituents who strongly support this scheme, because although it does not extend to Scotland it will bring significant benefits to Scotland? Ultimately, we will need to go further; once this Y-shaped network is in place, we must have high-speed rail to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Julian Huppert: As ever, I am delighted to agree with everything my hon. Friend says. Her constituents will benefit and the scheme will eventually need to continue, and I hope that it will be sooner rather than later.
	There have been debates about the economics of High Speed 2, and I think we all agree that it is absolutely right that we scrutinise them. The solution to our chronic capacity problem must deliver value for money. We have heard debate about the exact facts and figures. The ones I have seen place some reliance on or about the generation of 40,000 jobs and £44 billion for the economy, but the real economic impact of high-speed rail lies in changes that are harder to quantify. For far too long we have focused on London and the south-east, and it is key that high-speed rail helps to address that problem. High-speed rail will enable businesses in our major cities to compete with those in the capital and south-east. It will provide larger talent pools and more potential clients, improve domestic tourism and help us to rebalance our economy away from the City.
	We also need to look at the issue raised by the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey)—rail freight.

Phil Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Julian Huppert: I am afraid not; I do not have enough time.
	The number of container freights on a north-south axis has grown by 56% in the past eight years, leaving freight services, particularly around Liverpool, in a complete bottleneck. There are companies that would like to use rail freight much more, but simply cannot find the space to put the containers on the railway. We constantly have this tricky balance between keeping commuter services for those travelling to London and ensuring that businesses in the north have access to the freight services they need. We need both. In an advanced country that cares about sustainable growth in every region, this is not the trade-off we need.
	I wish I had more time to talk about the environmental consequences, but I would hope that all hon. Members agree that decarbonising domestic transport is a crucial measure that needs to be taken and that modal shift is important in achieving that. A shift of 6 million air trips and 9 million road trips on to rail is definitely a significant step forwards.
	High-speed rail is not some idealistic dream based on shaky, long-term assumptions; it is a logistical imperative. High-speed rail is vital for the long-term sustainability of our country’s infrastructure. The arguments for it heavily outweigh those against it, and I am delighted that the Government are taking it forward. I look forward to working closely with the Department for Transport, the Minister and other stakeholders to ensure that this project goes ahead and provides value for money for taxpayers and passengers alike, as well as providing the sustainable and efficient transport infrastructure that Britain is desperately lacking.

Mark Lazarowicz: I support the extension of high-speed rail north of London, not just because I believe that it is in the best interests of my constituency and of Scotland but because I believe that it will benefit the whole United Kingdom in economic, transport and environmental terms. It makes sense for many reasons, including the need to increase capacity, which other Members have
	mentioned. Incidentally, the idea that the only people who use long-distance trains are rich businessmen will come as something of a shock to those who regularly use east-coast and west-coast lines. The development will, in fact, benefit many people throughout the country.
	The existing network needs to be modernised in various ways, but it is ridiculous to suggest that it is possible to solve the capacity problem throughout Britain simply by modernising and upgrading it. As I said in an intervention, trying to replicate high-speed lines on the routes of existing lines would lead to decades of disruption and economic disbenefits. It is cheaper to build new lines, and, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out, if new lines are to be built anyway, they might as well be high-speed lines if possible.
	I do not support high-speed rail just for the sake of it—just because I want trains to travel as fast as they can. I accept that, in some localities, lower speeds may be acceptable for environmental reasons on the wider network. The fact remains, however, that reducing travel time between parts of the United Kingdom will create a number of benefits. Moreover, extending the line not just to Birmingham, Manchester and other parts of what, to me, constitutes southern England, but further north to Edinburgh and Glasgow, will produce the maximum economic and environmental benefits. The longer the journeys involved, the greater the possibility that passengers will travel by rail rather than air, and the more will be saved through high-speed rail. It will be possible to make significant cuts in air travel from Scotland to London if journey times can be reduced to less than three hours, and the same applies to road travel between Scotland and the north of England.

Kelvin Hopkins: In 1992, having freed up the line, British Rail ran a test train from King’s Cross to Edinburgh at 140 mph, and did it in the same time as HS2 is proposing for its trains.

Mark Lazarowicz: I think that that makes my point about capacity. Obviously, the line could not operate like that every day, because a fair number of trains would be running at the same time.
	Many of the business cases for the extension of the line to the midlands and the north of England do not take account of the economic benefits in business and tourist travel that would result if it were extended to Glasgow and Edinburgh. The increase in passengers would generate economic benefits, and the best business and economic case will be produced if there is agreement that the line should extend to Scotland, ensuring that we are not excluded from the system.
	My only worry about the current proposal is that we in Scotland, and indeed those in the north of England, would be at risk if the line extended no further than Birmingham, Leeds or Manchester. Trains cannot start at every part of the country at the same time, but we certainly do not want them to arrive at Birmingham at 2026, at Manchester or Leeds at 2033, and then—if we are lucky—at Edinburgh or Glasgow at 2050. That would be extremely damaging to our relative economic prosperity in the UK.

Tom Greatrex: Would it not be useful if Transport Scotland conducted a feasibility study on a third phase of HS2, working from north to south?

Mark Lazarowicz: I see no reason for not doing that. The Scottish Government have already expressed their willingness to make some contribution to such work. I think it would be sensible to start the planning now and to include in the development phase the idea that the line should start from Scotland as well as from the south of England. High-speed rail is not a panacea for all our ills, but it does provide opportunities to create economic and environmental boosts. It will also provide jobs, not in the next five or so years, but nevertheless for a long period, and it will provide a major boost to our economy. In the long run, it will help the economies of many parts of the UK.
	If this high-speed rail line is built but nothing is done around the stations—if there is no integrated transport or planning development around these rail hubs—we will not get the full benefits from the project. However, if local and central Government, and regions and cities, plan, they can make sure that high-speed rail brings major economic benefits, especially if it extends beyond Birmingham to the north of England and beyond. I support this project, therefore, and hope that we move ahead as quickly as possible, but Scotland must not be left at the end of the line.

Steven Baker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing the first debate on high-speed rail to be held in the Chamber. This is, however, the fourth debate that we have had on the subject since the election. We debated it in Westminster Hall on 23 November, 31 March and 13 July, so we have discussed it every four months or so. I notice that the period between debates is becoming ever shorter, so by the time HS2 delivers any value, we might be debating it every day.
	Contrary to certain assumptions, I am the only Buckinghamshire MP whose constituency is not affected by the high-speed rail proposal. I know that your constituency is affected by it, Mr Speaker, and that your constituents have very strong views and that you submitted a substantial response to the consultation. The Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), responded robustly to the consultation on behalf of her constituents, delivering seven files of objections and evidence against HS2, which will cut a deep scar through the middle of the area of outstanding natural beauty in which her constituency sits. The Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), and the Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), were present earlier, and I know that their constituents are implacably opposed to HS2. Many other members of the Government also have objections, including the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who also has strong views.
	Although my constituents are not directly affected, they oppose HS2 on a number of grounds, but before I go on to explain my opposition, I wish to welcome the
	Government’s noble intentions. Whether in seeking the rejuvenation of the economy, the revitalisation of the north or the protection of the environment, or in trying to attract international inward investment, their intentions are indeed noble, but I regret to say that I do not support the means by which they seek to meet those ends.
	The Secretary of State reflected on capacity, carbon and international competition in his evidence to the Transport Committee. On the question of the economics, as we have already learned in this debate, it is possible to refer to the titles and authors of reports both for and against the proposal. I am afraid that for every economist who comes down on one side of the debate, there will always be another economist on the other side. The Economist magazine came out against HS2, and when I put that to the Secretary of State, he was quick to rebut it and explain that he was about to write a letter.
	The truth is that this project is awash with entrepreneurial risk. It is impossible to get hold of any hard facts showing whether it is a good idea. There is certainly an economic case, but I am afraid that it is ethereal: the moment we grasp it, it seems to disappear.

Paul Maynard: My hon. Friend claims that there is no economic case, but does he recognise that there may be a strategic case?

Steven Baker: I enjoy serving on the Transport Committee with my hon. Friend, but I am not saying there is no economic case; rather, I am saying that we cannot nail down that case because of the entrepreneurial risk. In my view, when very large sums of capital are being allocated in an environment of entrepreneurial risk, entrepreneurs should bear that entrepreneurial risk.
	I asked an international investor, “What do you think of HS2?” The answer was, “It would be wonderful to arrive fresh and relaxed in no time at all.” I then asked, “Would you invest in it?” The response now was, “That’s unfair. Of course I wouldn’t invest in it.” The market would not deliver high-speed rail, and that would be a market success, because to do so would be a misallocation of capital.
	I put it to the Secretary of State that this project would socialise risk and privatise profit. He explained that that was to be expected, and we had to be realistic about it. I do not share that sense of “realism” on that point; I think that in reality this will be loss-making, in any commercial sense of the term. The whole point of loss is that it directs entrepreneurs to do something else with their capital, because if they are making a loss they are destroying value, not creating it.
	I shall now deal with the carbon implications of this line. Something profound is going on in relation to carbon. The Secretary of State talked about the need to keep going until we were absolutely sure that we would decarbonise the roads. There is a vision at the heart of HS2 that we have not yet fully grasped. Given that I have 30 seconds available to me, and others wish to speak, I shall just refer to a letter that I sent shortly after I arrived in this place. I said that the Government could not afford high-speed rail, that they would not be able to afford it, that it would be a disaster if they did this—my basis for saying that was David Myddelton’s book “They Meant Well: Government Project Disasters” —and that the Government should not do it in any
	event, because it should be left to entrepreneurs. Nothing that I heard during the Select Committee on Transport inquiry has changed my mind.

Tom Greatrex: It is a pleasure to be able to contribute briefly to this debate. A number of points have been made by other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), and I will not repeat those. However, I wanted to have the opportunity to make a couple of other points, particularly about Scotland.
	First, I want to make the point clearly that better transport links have many and varied benefits for business and the wider economy, and that is as true in Scotland as it is in other parts of the United Kingdom. Sectors of the economy that are particularly important in Scotland—finance, tourism and the food and drink industries—respond positively to improvements in transport links. That is part of the case being made by business organisations, trade unions, Glasgow city council and Edinburgh city council, and a range of bodies in Scotland that very much support HS2. The hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) is no longer in her place, but I accept her point that a high-speed network alone does not draw business to the UK, and is not the complete answer. However, it is an important part of the answer, for Scotland as well as for the rest of the UK.
	I wish to discuss the points made by the hon. Members for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and for Banbury (Tony Baldry) about the 40,000 jobs that would be created across the UK during the construction phase. I think I am right in saying that they both intimated that those jobs would be in the south-east of England. I say to both of them that that is not my experience of the jobs associated with other projects. For example, London 2012 work has gone to construction firms based in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Carlisle, Manchester, Newcastle—and, no doubt, many other places.

Phil Wilson: It is not just the route and its construction that are important; the rolling stock is important too. Hitachi, which is going to build a rolling stock factory in Newton Aycliffe, in my patch, has already said that it will bid to make the rolling stock for this route. That means that the north-east would benefit even before the route actually got to the north-east of England and created thousands of jobs.

Tom Greatrex: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I thank him for his intervention. What he says is also true of other firms—for example, those in my constituency that make the toughened glass for the windows of the rolling stock. A range of other supply chain benefits will accrue to a number of industries and companies, and will help to increase employability and skills in the economy.
	Secondly, I wish to discuss the environmental impact. I do not want to talk about the number of trees that will be planted along the line, but there is an environmental impact and benefit through getting people to shift from air to rail. From my constituency it is about a 90-minute flight between Glasgow and London, and I have to admit that I fly more often than I probably should.
	Even when we take into account the time taken getting to and from airports, flying is still quicker than using the fastest of the trains on the west coast.

Dan Byles: The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that reducing the number of short-haul flights will somehow result in a carbon saving. Does he agree that it does not take the brains of an archbishop to work out that if those slots are freed up at the airports, they will be filled by long-haul flights, which will produce higher CO2 emissions?

Tom Greatrex: The point I was about to make is that the number of people who fly from Glasgow or Edinburgh to London—they then perhaps stay in or work from London—is many more than those who then fly on somewhere else. The important point is that we may be able to move me, and some of the people I see every week—or on the weeks that I use the plane—because we would use the train more often if it was quicker. That is one of the benefits of extending high-speed rail into Scotland that we should not miss out on, although that may happen long after I have gone from this place. We should also remember that, as others have said, this is not necessarily just about business travel. Tourism and leisure, particularly in Scotland, will also be impacted on beneficially if we can get more people using rail instead of air.
	Obviously, my constituency concern is in Scotland, but I am also concerned about how it relates to the UK as a whole. The Minister for Housing and Transport in the devolved Scottish Government gave evidence to the Transport Committee—some members of the Committee are in the Chamber this afternoon—and he intimated that he had some commitment from the Government that in the event of there being a separate Scottish state, the English Government would build up to the border. I am not sure where that statement came from, and I wonder whether the Minister will be able to inform the House when she responds.
	The project could benefit the whole country, and the benefits for Edinburgh and Glasgow from the eventual extension of HS2 are tied up with the existence of the United Kingdom as one entity. It is interesting to suggest that a separate Scotland would need to build only from the border northwards, with the remaining English Government building up to the border. I am not sure how the economics of that would add up. I would be interested if the Minister could respond on that point or, if she is unable to do so today, if she could do so in writing.
	HS2 is an important project with potential for economic development, environmental benefit and economic advantage for the central belt of Scotland. I accept completely that there are many questions about some aspects of it, but I do not think that those objections are strong enough to derail the whole project. It is important for the whole country, and extending it so that it brings real benefits to Scotland is very important. That is why I support HS2.

Fiona Bruce: As a north-west MP, I wish to represent the concerns that my constituents have expressed to me both in correspondence and at
	meetings. The area of Cheshire that my constituency covers lies some 25 miles south of Manchester. Over recent years, journey times to London by rail have improved and the area is now well served, with a journey time of less than two hours from Euston. On the basis that stops reduce journey times, a new HS2 track is likely to run through or near my constituency but with no HS2 stops or links. An area that is currently well served might find not only that HS2 bypasses it, but that existing services become fewer and slower. Services from Crewe and Stoke-on-Trent, both of which serve my constituency, could suffer considerable disadvantage. Passengers from London using a new HS2 line could have to travel north to Manchester, then make a connection and return south on a local line. It is difficult to see how there would be much, if any, time saving on a journey from London.
	Let me turn now to the economic regeneration argument. The north-west is a wide area, and although HS2 might benefit the area immediately around Manchester—assuming that is the key north-west HS2 stop—it is questionable whether such benefits would radiate across the north-west region so as to benefit constituencies, such as my own, that are further afield. There is the additional concern that the flow of economic regeneration could be towards London and away from the north-west, so a project designed to bridge the north-south divide could have the opposite effect.
	The cost, some £32 billion, is perceived by many of my constituents as an inordinate amount of money at a time of severe economic pressure for the questionable benefits they will gain, particularly the many who do not use train travel at all. Several transport pressure points in my constituency are of far greater concern to them, and attention to those would immediately bring clear economic benefits to the area and the region, including freeing up not just local traffic but the M6 traffic flow from Birmingham up to the north-west.
	Notably, those would include opening up to passengers the Middlewich rail link, which is currently used only for freight, improvements to junction 17 of the M6 at Sandbach, and action to protect the Holmes Chapel community from the excessive speed and volume of vehicles that they constantly endure. All those issues could be resolved at a fraction of the £51 million that I understand would be the cost of HS2 to my constituency.
	When it comes to international travel, it is unlikely that an HS2 line north of Birmingham to Manchester would make much material difference to residents in my constituency, living as they do half an hour from Manchester and only a little further form Liverpool airport.

Andrew Percy: May I clarify something? On the one hand, my hon. Friend is saying that living near Manchester airport is a good thing for her constituents—but is she also saying that living near the Manchester hub for high-speed rail would not be a good thing for them? I do not see how the two ideas run together.

Fiona Bruce: I am saying that to travel from London to the north-west by HS2 would not benefit my constituents materially. Nor would it benefit them to travel by HS2 down to the continent, because it is quicker, and certainly more economical with the current fares, to go from Manchester or Liverpool airport.
	I agree that there is a strong case for enhancing the capacity of our inter-city rail network, including the west coast main line, but there are a number of solutions that could be achieved at a fraction of the cost of HS2 to my constituents. Many of those solutions have already been mentioned, such as improving provision for freight transportation or signalling. Others include improving the integrated regional network to take communities out of their cars in the north-west, increasing the number of platforms at Manchester Piccadilly to improve the commuter trains that are available, and increasing track numbers between Crewe and Manchester. I accept that the route of the extension from Birmingham to Manchester has not yet been specified, but I want to assure my constituents that if it runs through any part of my constituency, with the attendant environmental and other damage to farmland, residential areas and communities, they can be assured of my vigorous opposition to any such plan on their behalf.

John McDonnell: I am worried that some Members on both sides will not have time to speak, so I shall be as brief as I can. I should be a prime advocate of this high-speed rail scheme, because I have in my constituency a railway estate that was constructed by the railway companies and then taken over by British Rail, which houses railway workers, and also because I have worked with the rail industry and its unions—the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, ASLEF and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association—for nearly 40 years to promote rail and every railway scheme.
	As was mentioned earlier, as part of our campaign against the third runway we used the argument that we should invest in rail as an alternative. However, I have been absolutely alienated by the way in which the Government have handled this issue. Every other Member in the House is able to calculate the effect of the scheme on their constituency one way or the other—the advantages or disadvantages—but my constituents cannot, because of the way in which the Government are consulting on it. They are consulting on the route, except for the route into Heathrow, so my constituents and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) are living in a no man’s land of blight, because we do not yet know that route. We have had various indications and options but no direct consultation by the Government. Things are being done in two stages, and the second stage is meant to start in December, or any time now, but I believe that may be delayed as well.
	What my constituents do know is that they face a continuing life of blight until this decision is made, because the vague options put forward by Arup impact on their homes and on a large amount of the social capital in the area, in terms of parks and open spaces. They also have relatives in the north of the London borough of Hillingdon who are losing their homes, and losing social facilities such as the excellent Hillingdon outdoor activities centre. There are also further threats to green belt land in the north of the borough. My two colleagues in Hillingdon who are members of the Government are unable to speak today, but they have worked hard behind the scenes as best they can to relay to the Government the uncertainties, the blight and the threat to people’s lives that the proposals are forming.
	I urge the Government to publish the proposals on the links to Heathrow as rapidly as possible, so that my constituents can know where the future lies for them and so that we can have a proper consultation. I also urge the Government to start looking at some of the details of the route, and at the blight and damage it is causing, to see how they can obviate some of the threats that it brings.
	We should consider not just the link into Euston, but HS2’s impact on north London overall. There is a wider debate to be had about whether the route is the most appropriate one, because the concerns about environmental damage are mounting up to such an extent that I am becoming increasingly convinced that the economic arguments do not outweigh the environmental damage threatened by the route.
	I welcome the Transport Committee’s examination of the proposal, but I find it difficult to know how it will examine the proposal when the Government still have not told us what their proposals are for the links to Heathrow. The Government should learn the lesson that it is not the right way to handle a scheme or a consultation when one of the prime elements of the scheme is not published or consulted on comprehensively in a way that links the whole scheme together. The Government have completely mishandled the scheme—and I speak as one who would be a natural advocate of the advancement of rail in this country.

Stuart Andrew: Given the time constraints, I do not know about high-speed rail, but this will be a high-speed speech. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on initiating the debate. We have had numerous debates on this issue. Although we do not agree, we always end up with a smile at the end. I suppose that there is a danger of repeating what other hon. Members have said, so I will try to keep my speech as brief as possible, but I want to give a Yorkshire perspective, as hon. Members from many regions around the country have spoken.
	I am 100% in favour of High Speed 2. Not only is it needed, but it is inevitable and crucial if we are to be ready to compete in the future. Furthermore, if we do not face the realities of our transport infrastructure now, we will simply grind to a halt. We need to think about where we are now. It is worth reflecting that the railway industry’s success has been unprecedented in recent years, with a doubling of passenger numbers, as has been mentioned. Pressure on the west coast main line is so severe that it is expected to be restricted at the very latest by 2025, despite huge upgrades already having taken place in recent years.
	There are two routes to the north, not just one, and the problem at Leeds is equally bad. The capacity pressure at Leeds station is predicted to increase by another 40% in the coming years. Obviously, I travel from London to Leeds every week, and I am lucky if I find a seat between here and Peterborough in rush times. I have not got the luxury of switching on my laptop, because I have nowhere to sit.
	I hear from those who oppose the scheme that the money could be spent on other things. Frankly, we have to take those measures anyway. That is why the Government have announced a raft of measures, including the
	lengthening of trains and extra carriages, to help us build up the capacity that we need. Frankly, just to do that alone would be like trying to fix a broken leg with a sticking plaster. This is not an either/or. As the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) said, we have to do both.
	The west coast main line took years to be upgraded, causing massive disruption, and is already creaking at the seams. The problem is much bigger and requires us to think bigger and prepare for the future. We have heard lots about business. I was delighted when I heard the Government go for the Y route, which recognises that the north is an important part of our economic prosperity, and not to do so would stifle the prospect of growth.

Karen Lumley: Does my hon. Friend agree that HS2 will bring many more jobs to the midlands, because it will relieve air congestion in London and make Birmingham international, which is under capacity at the moment and an amazing airport to travel from, accessible for a lot more people to use?

Stuart Andrew: Absolutely. The benefits for the whole country are evident. The north-south divide is a problem that has faced successive Governments. Clearly, we are not arguing that HS2 will solve that alone—of course, it will not—but greater connectivity between our cities, such as Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, to the rest of Europe can only help.
	I want businesses in my constituency to enjoy having access to markets across Europe and the rest of the world. Transport links are crucial to making that happen. Too often, today’s network cannot cope. I recently went to Airedale International in my constituency. It is a high-tech industry that has just created a training centre. It is begging for high-speed rail, because it has a lot of business down here, but it has the skills up in the north. Why cannot we help it to expand to have both?
	We often hear that High Speed 2 is a white elephant, but studies have shown that it will bring about £44 billion of economic benefit and 40,000 jobs, which is not to be sniffed at. I did not see that white elephant when the Thameslink benefit-cost ratio came in at 2.2:1, or when Crossrail came in at 1.92:1.

Andrew Turner: Can my hon. Friend say how much of the money found for the project will be public money, and how much will be private?

Stuart Andrew: I would have to get the exact figures from my right hon. Friend the Minister. My point is that what we get back from HS2 will be far greater. If we look at the Jubilee line, the original benefit-cost ratio was 0.95:1. When it opened, that became 1.75:1, which shows that Governments are usually conservative in their estimates of the benefits that we can get from infrastructure. I did not hear about the white elephant when all the infrastructure projects I mentioned—southern infrastructure projects, funnily enough—were suggested.
	I understand why Members are supporting and standing up for their constituents—of course they will do that—but they have sent confused messages. They say that they
	are against HS2 on environmental grounds, yet some of them say, “Build more roads instead.” They say that they are against it on business grounds, yet they never opposed Crossrail or the Jubilee line. They say that they are against it because no one will use it, yet huge investment is needed in Euston station because it will not cope. We need to plan ahead and be bold, or in 10 years’ time Members of Parliament will complain in the Chamber that we did not make the decisions now to bring about the modernisation of Britain’s railways.

Hugh Bayley: I warmly welcomed the proposal for the High Speed 2 Y route when it was first introduced by Lord Adonis, and I congratulate the coalition Government on committing to the project. To be frank, today we have heard a lot of “economic” arguments presented by people who are really making political points about their constituency.
	I say to the Government that some economic studies, such as that by PricewaterhouseCoopers, suggest that within three years of completion, the Government will be able to recoup their entire investment plus an extra £6 billion or £7 billion by passing the railway on to the private sector, but there are other economic cases that say exactly the opposite. Instead of clutching at straws, the Government have an obligation to come up with some sensible costings that are convincing.
	I grew up in the Chilterns, and I understand the arguments that people from that region are making, but as someone who has not lived there for decades—I live in Yorkshire in the north of England—I have to say that the argument going on within the Conservative party about its heart and soul will be read as a debate between, on the one hand, one-nation Tories who want to invest in the future of the whole country and link it through new, modern, infrastructure, and, on the other, short-sighted southerners who frankly could not care less whether a railway goes beyond their county.

Angela Smith: I am still traumatised about having been described as a Manchester MP, because of course I represent a seat on the right side of the Pennines. The important point that my hon. Friend makes is that HS2 will help to bring the economies of the UK closer together. It will bring labour markets and businesses closer, and in that sense it is a catalyst for economic change and development. The points about economic cost are completely erroneous, and rather short-sighted and conservative.

Hugh Bayley: My hon. Friend has been a great champion of improving the rail infrastructure in Yorkshire and the north of England, and for connecting the north to jobs and markets in the south of England. We as British citizens have every bit as much right to be connected to our country’s capital—and, through the capital, to Europe—as people living in the south of the country.

Andrea Leadsom: rose —

Hugh Bayley: I give way to the hon. Lady, as she proposed the debate.

Andrea Leadsom: I thank the hon. Gentleman. If HS2 is such a fantastic project, does he think that the private sector will finance it?

Hugh Bayley: That is a really good question, which I ask the hon. Lady to think about. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) made the same point, suggesting that the only test for whether there is an economic case is whether private investors would undertake a project on their own without substantial Government investment. Had that argument been applied to the building of the M40, the connection between his constituents in Wycombe and London, Birmingham and Oxford, it would never have been built. Exactly the same could be said with regard to the link between the hon. Lady’s constituency and London via the M1.
	Big public transport infrastructure projects need political backing and leadership from Governments, and this project had it from the previous Government and has it from the current Government, which will give investors confidence. However, it will not get that investor confidence without Government cash. Had we not had the public investment in motorways in the ’60s and ’70s, just think out of the box about the economic state that our country would be in now. There are some local interests to be protected, which I understand, but the real test for the Conservatives now is whether or not they are going to speak for the whole country. I remind hon. Members that the Conservative manifesto stated:
	“A Conservative government will begin work immediately to create a high speed rail line connecting London and Heathrow with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. This is the first step towards achieving our vision of creating a national high speed rail network to join up major cities across England, Scotland and Wales. Stage two will deliver two new lines bringing the North East, Scotland and Wales into the high speed rail network.”
	I wish to make several points in the short time remaining. First, it is important that the high-speed wing of the “Y” that goes to Yorkshire and the north east leaves the line south of Birmingham, so that it can connect the three great east midlands cities of Leicester, Derby and Nottingham, through the Sheffield city region, to Leeds.
	Secondly, it is essential that that line joins the existing east coast main line, which for some time will remain the link from Yorkshire to Scotland, south of York. The reason for that is partly self-interest—I am speaking as a York Member—and partly because York is a rail hub and the most interconnected station in the north of England, at least east of the Pennines. If we are to get feeder services, good connectivity with York is important.
	Thirdly, the link to Scotland is extremely important, and the most viable first link should be from Leeds to Edinburgh and on to Glasgow, because that would provide connectivity with Tyneside and Teesside on the way, whereas pushing the line north from Manchester faces the environmental barrier of two national parks, and there are very few people, but many sheep, between Lancaster and Motherwell. I ask the Government to plan for the connection first to go through the east coast corridor.
	Finally, it is not a case of investing in either the current infrastructure or High Speed 2. The country needs both and the Government must commit to both.

Iain Stewart: I understand that I must sit down promptly at 5:40 pm, so this will be a super-fast contribution. I should make it clear that, although I serve on the Transport Committee, the comments I am about to make are entirely my own, as the Committee is yet to conclude its inquiry and produce its report.
	I have looked at a huge amount of evidence on high-speed rail, from the UK and overseas. My conclusion is that I am in favour of high-speed rail but not yet convinced of the specifics of High Speed 2. I agree that there is a case for a new strategic north-south railway line in this country. As other Members have mentioned, the capacity on the west coast main line and other strategic routes will run out at some point, even with upgrades. It is a false choice between upgrading those lines, which we need to do anyway to address the immediate capacity problems, and building a new high-speed line. Both are required. I do not think that we can defer a decision for another 10 years, because we will be having exactly the same debate then and enduring severe overcrowding for passengers and freight.
	I would argue against just upgrading the existing line, which could be done effectively only at the exclusion of those intermediate stops on the line for commuter services to places such as Milton Keynes. Both are necessary; we cannot just look at upgrading.
	I am not going to get through anything like what I wanted to say, but there are a number of areas where High Speed 2 has not been looked at in the round. At the weekend, we saw the proposal for a new “Heathwick” high-speed line to connect Heathrow and Gatwick, but that has not been appraised in the overall—[ Interruption. ] My Whip tells me that I must sit down now, so I shall conclude my remarks.

Mr Speaker: I remind the Front Benchers that a very brief winding-up speech from the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) would be a courtesy and is customary on these occasions.

John Woodcock: This has been a lively debate. We have had excellent contributions, with both sides of the argument coming from both sides of the House, and with opposite ends of the country making different cases.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing this debate and on the tenacity with which she contributed and intervened. She has crystallised one part of the “anti” argument, and on both sides a range of arguments has been played out throughout the debate, which has gone on for a number of years and will continue to rumble on. The hon. Lady crystallises the arguments of those on the “anti” side who simply do not accept the economic case and, if I may say so, will probably not accept any economic case that is made. Indeed, economic facts and figures are simply being talked past each other, and that is one of the problems that we have got ourselves into.
	We have heard from Members, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who have expressed a genuinely held fear about the impact that the development may have
	on their communities, and we have heard from others, such as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), who raised fears for the natural environment, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) said, they are not nimbys: if they stand up for their own areas, they do so because that is absolutely what they have been sent to Parliament to do.
	On the other side of the argument, however, we have people making a compelling case and stressing the overwhelming benefit that the project may bring to UK plc. Scottish Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), stressed the importance of the project to Scotland, even on the existing proposals, and it was good to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) make the case for the manufacturing opportunities that the project will bring at a parlous time for train manufacturing in the UK.
	The hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) crystallised the vital argument about capacity, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) pointed to the studies that dispel the fear that the project will benefit primarily the south of England, stating absolutely rightly that it can bring the local economies of this great country closer together.
	Labour in government delivered the country’s first high-speed railway. The Y-shaped route of High Speed 2, which would link our cities, is a Labour initiative, and I can state clearly today that that vital lifeline of economic growth will be built by a future Labour Government and backed by Labour in opposition. Provided that the Government’s nerve holds, we will work across the Floor of the House to secure parliamentary approval for the legislation needed to deliver the scheme, and if their resolve fails, we will be on hand to bring them to their senses.
	We looked at our commitment afresh in opposition, and we were right to do so. This project will require sustained and substantial investment at a time when public finances will unquestionably be tight. We looked at the business case again, examined the counter-proposals, and listened to the sincere and heart-felt objections expressed alongside the views of passionate advocates of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the shadow Secretary of State, has travelled the proposed route talking to and listening to the communities that will be affected. Our conclusion is that the business case stacks up.
	Of course we should debate the relative benefits of reducing journey time, though we believe they are clear, and of course we must continue to scrutinise the precise route. However, the capacity issues on the existing main lines are so great that we believe there is no credible alternative to building a new line. Closing existing lines to carry out improvements would bring chaos to millions of journeys and could be a real economic drag throughout the long and costly process. It is vital that we learn the lesson of the west coast main line modernisation programme. We will be failing future generations if we pass up the opportunity to employ the most advanced technology available.
	It is because we have looked afresh at the programme that we can reaffirm our commitment to it as one that we began in government and will follow through. I look forward to the day in 2018 when—under a Labour Government, of course—we cut the first sod of earth on the project.
	A consensus across the House is important to boost confidence, but we will continue to press the Government on serious concerns. First, of course, there is the route. The Government must listen carefully to concerns about the exact nature of the route and treat with respect the genuine objections raised, making accommodations where feasible and adequate compensation where not. Secondly, we must address the problems of connecting to the line, many of which have been raised today. I hope that the Minister will explain, for example, why the potential need for extra capacity at Euston has not been acknowledged. There are many issues on which I do not necessarily agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but he was right to question why Heathrow is being dealt with in a second stage and to raise the unsatisfactory nature of that approach for his constituents and for people wanting to know how these things will connect up.
	Thirdly, there is a need for certainty about the line going all the way up to Leeds and Manchester. If the Government are genuine about extending it beyond Birmingham, they should not delay legislating on Leeds and Manchester until the next Parliament. We need one hybrid Bill covering both phases of the line. Yes, that Bill will be larger, but construction need not be delayed by a single day. We need certainty for investors and for the travelling public, and a single Bill would give greater certainty, not less.
	Fourthly, we must ensure that the whole country benefits from high-speed rail. I have been encouraged by how businesses right across the north, including Barrow shipyard in my own patch, have been lobbying for this investment to happen. Finally, we must make this a high-speed line for the many, not the few. The Government need to put their cards on the table. What sort of railway do they want High Speed 2 to be? Labour Members are clear: we cannot have a railway for the wealthy few where sky-high fares deter the majority from being able to travel.
	I thank hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire for securing it. I have been pleased to restate Labour’s deeply held, unequivocal commitment to this project, and we look forward to working across the House to make it happen.

Theresa Villiers: I welcome the extensive support across the House for the Government’s proposals and in particular the clear expression of support from Her Majesty’s official Opposition. My time is too short to refer specifically to everyone, but I would like to make special mention of my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who are in their places. Their exacting scrutiny of the Government’s proposals has been effective and I welcome their robust input into the debate. I also mention my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), who is also in his place and who strongly supports this scheme.
	I first emphasise that the Government fully recognise the legitimate concerns of communities along the preferred route about the potential impact on their local environment. That has been raised by Members such as the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson). About half of the preferred route that we inherited has been changed. In the sensitive Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, all but two miles of the preferred route is in a tunnel or deep cutting, or follows an existing transport corridor. I am confident that we can and will make further improvements as a result of the consultation responses that are under consideration as we speak.
	I am also conscious of the enormous importance of getting the right answer at Euston. We will, of course, scrutinise carefully all the representations made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson).

Dan Byles: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Theresa Villiers: I will not just yet, because my time is short.
	HS1 is an example of how high-speed rail can be designed in a way that mitigates and minimises the impact on local communities. Equal care will be needed in phase 2 with the link to Heathrow. Again, we will be careful to listen to the concerns of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and his constituents.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) spoke about the predictions of passenger growth for HS2. The consultation document forecasts that passenger demand will roughly double for long-distance services on the west coast main line, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew). That projection is over 30 years and is based on modest growth rates of about 2% a year. If anything, those numbers are cautious when one takes into account the fact that demand between London and Manchester rose by almost 60% over the four years to 2008 and that overall long-distance demand has grown every year since 1997 at an average of 5% a year. There is a wide-ranging consensus, which has been echoed by many Members today, that the southern end of the west coast route will be completely full within 10 to 15 years, or possibly sooner as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond).

Christopher Pincher: Will the Minister say why she persists in using version 4.1 of the “Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook”, which Sir Rod Eddington says offers wildly inaccurate demand predictions? Why does she not use version 5.0, which is waiting on her desk for her to sign off? It offers much more reasonable demand projections and would allow her to pursue options other than HS2.

Theresa Villiers: We believe that version 4.1 gives a more robust analysis of passenger demand forecasts. I am confident that whichever methodology one uses to predict passenger demand, we face a capacity time bomb on the west coast main line. Even our efforts in undertaking the biggest programme of rail capacity improvement for 100 years will not be enough to meet our long-term capacity needs.
	We desperately need additional inter-city transport capacity, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). No responsible Government can afford to sit back and ignore this problem. High-speed rail provides the best way to meet that pressing economic need. Contrary to the allegations of its detractors, HS2 is not and has never been a project designed to shave a few minutes off the journey time to Birmingham; it is about delivering the inter-city transport links that are crucial for the future success of our economy in this country, in both the north and the south.

Dan Byles: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Theresa Villiers: No, I will not.
	No upgrade of the existing railways is capable of matching the increase in capacity that HS2 will deliver. A fundamental problem with the alternative schemes is that they rely on upgrades of the existing line. By definition, they cannot release any capacity on the existing network. The release of capacity is a fundamental part of the benefit that can be provided by HS2. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey pointed out, the alternatives are simply sticking-plaster solutions. Of the alternatives formally considered, only one had a positive benefit-to-cost ratio. The solution put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire of tinkering with first and second class is simply not credible; nor are the 51m proposals, which have not been adequately costed, do not take into account the massive cost of signalling remodelling and cannot deal with a peak-time crisis. Furthermore, trying to defuse the capacity time bomb with any kind of work on the existing line would involve extensive disruption, as was pointed out by the shadow Minister, and that would come not long after the people on this route had to put up with a decade of disruption for the last upgrade of the west coast line.
	Concern has been expressed that our analysis does not take account of the fact that time on a train can be used productively. However, stress-testing our business case figures shows that factoring in productive time on trains actually slightly strengthens the case for high-speed rail. The additional capacity provided by HS2 would enable more people to get a seat and get some productive work done on a train. What is more, failing to deliver a new line would lead to ever more serious overcrowding problems, making it even more difficult to work on a train. The fact that Stop HS2 keeps making the point about work demonstrates the overall weakness of its argument.

Dan Byles: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Theresa Villiers: No.
	A fundamentally weak point put by the opponents of HS2 is the claim that it will disadvantage the regions that it will serve. That is startling when one thinks of the vigorous campaigns fought around the world by towns and cities desperate to connect to the high-speed rail networks that their countries are building. It is no surprise to hear of those campaigns when one takes on board the fact that Euralille has the third largest office complex in France, beaten into second place by Lyon’s Part-Dieu TGV station with its 5.3 million square feet
	of office space—economic development that would have been entirely impossible without the high-speed rail network in France. Survey work undertaken in relation to the TGV network clearly showed that the regions it served, rather than Paris, had experienced the greatest boost in their economies. It is simply not credible to claim that the north and the west midlands will be disadvantaged by high-speed rail, as evidenced by the strong support for the project in those areas.
	If we need evidence of the startling benefits that transport links can bring, we have only to walk 30 yards from the Chamber to Westminster tube station and get on the Jubilee line extension. Now one of the biggest financial centres in the world, Canary Wharf simply would not exist without the Jubilee line extension. The benefits of high-speed rail will be felt right across the north and midlands, with a boost to the whole country’s economy.
	I reiterate that our assumptions about the viability of HS2 and the expected fare box do not factor in or depend on a premium for high-speed services. Our appraisal is based on fares in line with the existing services. In response to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire, the level of fares on Southeastern has absolutely nothing to do with HS1; neither do the performance issues on that route.
	It is clear that in the longer term, the benefits of high-speed rail will exceed its construction costs, but the reality is that if we examine the scale of the project and average out the cost over the years it will take to deliver it, we see that it is by no means out of line with projects such as Crossrail. The claim that the rest of the rail network would be starved of funds if HS2 went ahead is undermined by the fact that the Government are committed to delivering the largest and most extensive package of rail capacity upgrades since the Victorian era, a number of which will carry on into the period during which HS2 is expected to be under construction.
	Finally, I refer to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), who rather let the cat out of the bag. If arguments such as his had been accepted, we would never have built the channel tunnel, HS1, the Jubilee line extension or the motorway network. Not even the Victorian railways on which we still depend would have been built, because although they were built by the private sector, the people who built them lost their shirts and largely went out of business.
	The Government’s two most important goals are to address the deficit and to secure economic growth. Improving our transport infrastructure has a central part to play in delivering those goals, and we believe that high-speed rail can and should have a central role in our transport plans for the future.

Andrea Leadsom: I congratulate the many colleagues who have spoken in this debate, and I am sorry for those who wanted to speak and did not. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles), who was instrumental in securing the debate. I am sorry that we did not get to hear from him.
	I reiterate that I think we can all agree that there is a massive capacity problem not just on the west coast main line but across our entire rail network, and it is absolutely right that the Government should consider ways to improve capacity, rail infrastructure and economic development across the UK. However, I go back to the fact that HS2 is not a “build it and they will come” project. We should not look at a £32 billion expenditure as something that we can just do on the hoof and expect the return to come. There has been plenty of anecdotal evidence today—so-and-so says this, and so-and-so says that—but I have heard no hard evidence that HS2 will be good value for money. This is not our money; it is the taxpayers’ money. As my right hon. Friend the Minister so eloquently said, let us hope that we, like the Victorian railway owners, do not go bust and lose our shirts over it.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Business without Debate

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (19 OCTOBER)

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 19 October, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motions in the name of Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition Day; proceedings on the Motions may continue, though opposed, until the moment of interruption and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply—(Bill Wiggin.)

ANCHOR HOUSING ASSOCIATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Bill Wiggin.)

Mike Wood: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this debate and thank those organisations, particularly Age UK, that since the schedule was announced have sent me a good deal of relevant background information.
	At a time when figures show that those aged 65 and over in our country number 10 million and that the figure is set to grow to well over 16 million by 2035, the consensus seems to be that long-term care in this country is in crisis and has been for some time. We see continuing concern about Southern Cross and more generally about how we get funding right for a group with considerable needs and to whom we owe an obvious duty of care. The Government recognised that when they committed a further £7.2 billion to the delivery of social care in the four years to 2014-15. I know that the Government intend to release a White Paper next spring and have before them, among other evidence, the recommendations of the Dilnot commission, the Law Commission and the Health Select Committee regarding failings in the Care Quality Commission. However, following a recent experience in my own constituency, I would like to add one more small set of recommendations, to place alongside those weighty reports, as the Government wrestle with this extremely difficult set of issues.
	After boundary changes before the 2010 general election, I inherited an area of Dewsbury where Anchor housing association has run a sheltered housing complex for more than 30 years. Barnfield houses 51 elderly—in some cases, very elderly—people, the vast majority of whom express themselves as happy to be there and say that they want to stay in what they have been led to regard as their home for life. Throughout the past three years, for instance, occupancy rates have been over 96%, which seems to underline how popular a place it is. Several of those 51 residents have lived in the complex for the whole 31 years of its existence.
	At a week’s notice, however, in the middle of August, residents were called together and told that Anchor was reviewing the future of the complex in view of the projected capital expenditure needed to bring facilities up to modern standards. The truth is that Anchor wishes to wash its hands of the establishment and, by definition, of my 51 constituents. Two options were outlined: first, closure and, secondly, the transferral of ownership to another social landlord. Although the latter was very much its preferred course of action, residents were left in no doubt that if efforts along those lines failed, they would have to be found alternative accommodation. I was not at the meeting, but I am reliably informed that many residents started to weep at this news. Resident Mike Neville described the meeting addressed by Anchor’s Andrew Railton, the charity’s head of operational transitions—whatever that means—as
	“without warmth, concern or compassion. A shocking way to do things. Anchor’s slogan is ‘happy living for years ahead’. This is meaningless marketing language to the people of Barnfield”.
	I have since met the residents of Barnfield three times. They remain shocked and angry, especially as Anchor gave itself until November—three whole months
	—to tell them of their fate. However, having overcome the initial shock, residents have not taken things lying down. The estimable Mike Neville approached my office and, with Chris Allinson and Sandra and Ken Garfield, has liaised with us throughout. Residents presented a statement to Anchor outlining their wish to remain in situ and, with varying degrees of success, have attempted to contact members of the Anchor board and senior management. They have been supported throughout by local clergy—in particular, Rev. Tom Hiney, Rev. Ann Pollard and Rev. Lisa Senior. Residents have also continued to benefit from the support of the live-in warden, Jan Crabtree, and her husband. As an Anchor employee, Jan has been placed in an invidious position as a result of a decision in which she had no part. Residents have told me how much they continue to value her care and attention.
	When I finally met the chief executive of Anchor, Jane Ashcroft, she was happy to apologise for any distress caused to my constituents, but felt that the meeting—which she had not attended any more than I had—had been properly conducted by her colleague and could give no assurance that residents would not have to move out if a buyer for the complex could not be found. At my request, she later provided me with financial figures and supporting documentation that convinced me even more that Anchor’s decision to leave Barnfield had nothing to do with its stated reasons for review. The complex has high occupancy levels and appears to be self-sustaining financially.
	We must ask, therefore, why a charity and the largest social landlord in the country should treat its residents—including some who suffer from mental health problems—in such a fashion, putting their well-being and perhaps even their life chances at risk. Why are the very people whom the charity claims to be serving the very last people to be considered? Indeed, many questions need answering, some of which were put in a hard-hitting article by our campaigning local newspaper, The Dewsbury Reporter, not least of which was: where has the money paid in rents and service charges over 31 years gone? That is especially important because as recently as May this year, couples such as Mr and Mrs Thorne were being admitted to the complex. As a couple in their 80s, they then had to spend more than £4,000 of their savings to have the property rewired and brought up to liveable standards.
	Anchor refused to answer any of those questions, but did produce a statement pointing to its responsibilities as a charity—responsibilities, it would seem, to everybody except my constituents, the very people whom Anchor is supposed to be in business to serve. However, in using the word “business” we are perhaps beginning to get to the nub of the problem. I have no doubt that Anchor has taken a strategic decision in the interests of its business to pull out of establishments such as Barnfield. We may never know when that was decided or by whom, but it was certainly before the matter was broached with Barnfield residents on 9 August.
	The decision also appears to have been taken without the benefit of any consultation, and not just with residents but with our local authority, Kirklees, with which Anchor is supposed to work in partnership on such matters. The strategy may make perfect sense for the charity as a whole—although some openness about its real objective would have allowed us to know that—but what is
	unacceptable is to achieve that goal at the cost of enormous worry and uncertainty to that group of vulnerable elderly people. In the absence of being consulted or considered, they are owed much more than a rather easily produced apology; they are owed an explanation.
	Based on this experience, which I have no reason to believe is unique, may I put it to the Minister that charities and third sector organisation should be judged by the results of their actions, just as the management of Southern Cross should be? They appear to need every bit as much regulation and oversight as those that are engaged in this sector primarily to make money. It would appear that, if they are not careful, charities and not-for-profit companies can become just as divorced from the people they are supposed to serve as the most rapacious money-making outfit, and, in this regard, I think size matters.
	In my view, organisations such as Anchor have long since reached the tipping point beyond which their prime considerations, while perhaps understandable by their own lights, have less and less connection with the needs and wishes of their own residents. They exist for the good of the charity as a large and complex organisation with a turnover of millions of pounds per annum, and not necessarily for the good of those to whom they provide services.
	I want to ask the Government to consider capping the size of social landlords, preferably at about half the size of Anchor as it is constituted.

Tracey Crouch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mike Wood: I will not, at this moment.
	Will the Government also place a responsibility on the reformed Care Quality Commission to work especially closely with providers that, through longevity and acquisition, have long since lost sight of whom they operate to serve? Will the Minister also ensure that social landlords make their strategic plans public, so that they are open to scrutiny and can be tested by the CQC, the Charity Commissioners, local authorities and, most importantly, residents and prospective residents and their families?
	In essence, we need elderly people to be treated with respect. My constituent Lawrence Tomlinson, the owner of Ideal Care Homes, has shown that first-rate facilities can be provided in the care home sector while ensuring a good return for the owners of those homes. I saw that for myself when I visited Lydgate Lodge in my constituency only last week. But, as with the other elements in our care of the elderly, provision is very patchy. As recommended by Dilnot, we must get rid of the postcode lottery and establish a national framework for eligibility, as favoured by the Law Commission.
	Lastly, I believe that we should examine seriously the case for a Cabinet Minister for older people—ironically, as advocated by Anchor in its Grey Pride campaign. The care system is in crisis as the size of our elderly populace grows, yet I must point out, without being too unkind, that the responsibility for improving the situation is spread haphazardly over several Government
	Departments. It is unclear whose job it is in Government to defend the interests of elderly citizens, just as it was unclear who was responsible for looking after the good of the residents of Barnfield in the vast charity that was supposedly helping to care for them.
	The Minister is not yet the Minister for the elderly—[ Interruption. ] He appears to be making a bid for the job, and I would certainly support such an appointment. I hope that he will be able to give me at least an initial view on these few practical suggestions for improvements in the care for our elderly citizens that we all want to see.

Bob Neill: I congratulate the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) on securing a debate that is important both for general policy and for the specific concerns of his constituents. I also congratulate him on the careful and thoughtful way in which he presented his case. By responding on both those points, I shall endeavour to do the best justice I can to it in the time available.
	I would like to start with the more specific issue of the position of Anchor. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, Anchor is a large provider—one of the leading providers of housing for older people. It has met those people’s needs for some 40 years, delivering a variety of products. As has been said, it is a registered charity, which makes it independent and non-profit-making. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is responsible for making its own business decisions, so the scope for Government intervention is generally constrained by the law relating to charities. Equally, however, Anchor must adhere to Charity Commission guidelines and, as a private registered provider, to the guidance of the social housing regulator—the Tenant Services Authority.
	As I understand it, and as the hon. Gentleman fairly set out, Anchor has come to a view about its involvement with Barnfield for the future and has set out options for the residents. Its preferred option is to find another provider to take this development on. Let us hope that that is the solution; it would be for the best, enabling Barnfield residents to remain in their homes. It is worth noting that Anchor will need to apply to the regulator for consent to do so. That will not remove the uncertainty that I appreciate is playing on the minds of the residents. If it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, I had a similar case with a much smaller charity in my own constituency before the general election. It had been going on for some time. I understand people’s feelings, because I met the constituents involved in that case.
	Anchor is required to obtain the regulator’s consent before disposing of the property. It is up to the regulator to decide to grant consent, and it is normal policy to withhold consent for the disposal of property unless that disposal is to another social housing provider or to the tenants. There are some safeguards; one cannot prejudge any particular case.
	In view of the hon. Gentleman’s comments, it is worth observing that the regulator also requires providers to engage in meaningful consultation with the relevant local authority and with tenants before seeking consent for a disposal. Housing associations registered with the regulator are also required to consult tenants if it is proposed to change their landlord or make a significant
	change in the management arrangements. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents might wish to consider that in the context of contact with the TSA.
	There is also a regulatory requirement to have in place a procedure for dealing with formal complaints. If, having completed that process, residents remain unhappy, they have the right to raise a complaint with the housing ombudsman. It then becomes a matter for the ombudsman to deal with. Areas of maladministration that fall under the ombudsman’s remit include, for example, failure of a body to apply its own procedures, failure to comply with legal obligations or codes of practice, unreasonable behaviour, or having treated the complainant personally in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic or inappropriate manner. That might be relevant; I, of course, have to be independent.
	That is the position, so it is worth reflecting on the fact that steps have to be gone through before a disposal can be taken. I understand that Anchor is contacting residents at regular intervals, and I hope that is the case. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is closer to the ground there than I am.
	The broader point is well made, given that we all get older. Whether I would be better qualified to be a Minister for elderly people by virtue of my greater experience in comparison with other hon. Members might have been the cause of some merriment. I believe we all want to maintain our independence and to keep our own home. I have an 87-year-old mother, and I know exactly what her view is.

Tracey Crouch: I recently initiated an Adjournment debate on older people in Westminster Hall, during which I drew attention to the acute pressure on housing for our older generation. Given that that pressure will become a great deal worse, will the Minister consider the constructive suggestion that some flexibility should be applied to the new homes bonus? That might well give developers an incentive to ensure that older people are catered for specifically in the future.

Bob Neill: That is an interesting idea, and this is not the first occasion on which I have heard it raised by my hon. Friend and by people in the sector. I will convey it, along with a number of other suggestions, to the Minister for Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who will consider what is the most appropriate action.
	The complexity of the system often makes choices difficult, but the Government are helping by supporting the provision of information and advice. In May I announced funding of £1.5 million for FirstStop, which offers expert advice to older people, their families and their carers on housing and associated care and money
	issues. It is a national service, delivered in partnership with specialist providers and local partners. One of the coalition’s aims is to give people access to better information. “The Coalition: our programme for government” includes the commitment to
	“help elderly people live at home for longer”,
	which may involve their staying in the family home but may also mean a move to more suitable accommodation.
	We must ensure that there is enough suitable accommodation, and to that end we have embarked on a number of policy reforms. We expect to deliver up to 170,000 new affordable homes between 2011 and 2015—an increase on our original estimate of 150,000, including 80,000 under the affordable homes programme. As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), we have also introduced the new homes bonus, which is a much more transparent incentive. We want to ensure that local authorities have sufficient flexibility by “un-ring-fencing” funds in response to local needs.
	We have announced that we will raise right-to-buy discounts to make buying more attractive to tenants who want to stay put. However, we are determined not just to fulfil residents’ aspirations for home ownership, but to ensure that every home bought under the right to buy will fund a new affordable home, over and above our existing plans. That, along with a number of other matters, will be included in the housing strategy. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take a particular interest in the way in which it deals with the sector that he has raised tonight.
	We know that we must encourage the provision of a wide range of accommodation to suit the changing needs and circumstances of older people. The hon. Gentleman has made a number of thoughtful suggestions. As I have said, there are examples of good practice among charities of varying sizes, but we must nevertheless be alert to risk, and I think that the Charity Commission and other regulatory bodies provide the appropriate means of dealing with that. We want results that will ultimately benefit those receiving the provision.
	I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that capping size is not necessarily the answer. What is important is ensuring that charities are responsive. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government has expressed a desire to encourage greater transparency in the social housing provider sector as a whole, and I hope that that will deal with the hon. Gentleman’s specific points.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned .